2008 Emails ______________________________________________________ 5123. 2008-01-01 11:22:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: Susan Solomon , "Thomas.R.Karl" , , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "'Philip D. Jones'" , , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , myles , Bill Fulkerson date: Tue, 01 Jan 2008 11:22:39 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Tom Wigley , carl mears Hi Tom--I would also think that, in relating the temperature rise to Cl-Cl relationship, it important to recognize that most of the evaporation that becomes rainfall is from warmer parts of world where the delta-T is smaller than global average, whereas much of the delta-T is from the more polar regions that are colder and where little of evaporation for rainfall comes from. So, looking for a percentage change based on average temperature change is not a valid presumption. It is also interesting that, in the model runs which Ken Caldeira has done to test the idea I had 5 years or so ago of geoengineering just in the Arctic (that is, reducing solar only over the Arctic) in order not to impose large reduction in solar direct over most of the world and to take advantage of albedo feedback effect, the temperature in the Arctic and adjoining midlatitude regions drops, but the precipitation in the Arctic does not drop much at all--mainly, we suspect because the loading of atmospheric water vapor is controlled in the lower latitudes where the Arctic dimming has little effect on temperature. Indeed, in the Arctic the precipitation is now snow instead of rain (as in the CO2 doubling case), but the amount does not go down--and, indeed, having more snow would help to build back glaciers and Greenland Ice Sheet and help to reduce sea level rise. So, sort of a double benefit. Best, Mike M On 1/1/08 10:58 AM, "Tom Wigley" wrote: > Carl, > > A long time ago I wondered why global-mean precip change in GCMs per > degree global-mean warming was less than Cl-Cl (as in many diagrams from > IPCC 1990 onwards). My answer comes from partially differentiating the > surface energy budget equation at constant RH. This, from memory, is a > little tricky -- I've got my sums somewhere that I'd need to hunt for. > Anyhow, > d(precip)/d(T) comes to about 3% per degree C. > > Tom. > > (For 'd', read backwards 6. Can't seem to get to this with Thunderbird.) > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > carl mears wrote: > >> Hi Susan and others... >> >> Thanks for pointing out the Forster et al paper. I've been wondering >> about the effect of ozone on the >> tropical upper tropospheric temperature trends since I saw the >> vertical trends profile from >> "GFDL CM 2.1x" at the SPARC temperature trends meeting last spring. >> >> My question: is this effect big enough to affect precipitation >> trends. If so it could help >> explain the discrepancy between our SSM/I precipitation trends and the >> sub-clausius-clapeyron >> trends predicted under CO2 increase. (Wentz et al 2007, Held and >> Soden, Allen et al). >> >> Steve Sherwood and I emailed about this a few months ago, and at the >> time, we concluded "no", >> based on a simple model. Do these new results change this conclusion? >> >> -Carl >> >> At 09:18 AM 12/30/2007, 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) >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> 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)) >> >> >> > > 3525. 2008-01-02 10:08:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , Dian Seidel , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Karl Taylor , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Ben Santer , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , Myles Allen , Bill Fulkerson date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:08:31 +0000 from: Peter Thorne subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: Susan Solomon Susan et al., I had also seen the Forster et al paper and was glad to see he had followed up on work and ideas we had discussed some years ago when he was at Reading and from the Exeter workshop. At the time I had done some simple research on whether the stratosphere could affect the tropical troposphere - possibly through convection modification or radiative cooling. I'd done a simple timeseries regression of T2LT=a*Tsurf+b*T4+c and got some regression coefficients out that suggested an influence. Now, this was with old and now discredited data and the Fu et al. technique has since superseded it to some extent (or at least cast considerable doubt upon its efficacy) ... it would certainly be hard to prove in a regression what was cause and effect with such broad weighting functions even using T2LT which still isn't *really* independent from T4. But one thing I did do to try to "prove" the regression result was real is take the composite differences between QBO phases on 45 years of detrended (can't remember exactly how but I think I took differences from decadally filtered data) data from radiosondes (HadAT1 at the time). This showed a really very interesting result and suggested that this communication if it was real went quite far down in to the troposphere and was statistically significant, particularly in those seasons when the ITCZ and QBO were geographically coincident. I attach the slide for interest. I think this is the only scientifically valid part of the analysis that I would stand by today given the rather massive developments since. I doubt that raobs inhomogeneities could explain the plot result as they project much more onto the trend than they would onto this type of analysis. The cooling stratosphere may really have an influence even quite low down if this QBO composite technique is a good analogue for a cooling startosphere's impact, and timeseries regression analysis supports it in some obs (it would be interesting to repeat such an analysis with the newer obs but I don't have time). A counter, however, is that surely the models do radiation so those with ozone loss should do a good job of this effect. This could be checked in Ben's ensemble in a poor man's sense at least because some have ozone depletion and some don't. The only way this could be a real factor not picked by the models, I concluded at the time, is if models are far too keen to trigger convection and that any real-world increased radiative cooling efficiency effect is masked in the models because they convect far too often and regain CAPE closure as a condition. On another matter, we seem to be concentrating entirely on layer-average temperatures. This is fine, but we know from CCSP these show little in the way of differences. The key, and much harder test is to capture the differences in behaviour between layers / levels - the "amplification" behaviour. This was the focus of Santer et al. and I still believe is the key scientific question given that each model realisation is inherently so different but that we believe the physics determining the temperature profile to be the key test that has to be answered. Maybe we need to step back and rephrase the question in terms of the physics rather than aiming solely to rebutt Douglass et al? In this case the key physical questions in my view would be: 1. Why is there such strong evidence from sondes for a minima at c. 500? Is this because it is near the triple point of water in the tropics? Or at the top of the shallow convection? Or simply an artefact? [I don't have any good ideas how we would answer the first two of these questions] 2. Is there really a stratospheric radiative influence? If so, how low does it go? What is the cause? Are the numbers consistent with the underlying governing physics or simply an artefact of residual obs errors? 3. Can any models show trend behaviour that deviates from a SALR on multi-decadal timescales? If so, what is it about the model that causes this effect? Physics? Forcings? Phasing of natural variability? Is it also true on shorter timescales in this model? It seems to me that trying to do an analysis based upon such physical understanding / questions will clarify things far better than simply doing another set of statistical analysis. I'm still particularly interested if #2 is really true in the raobs (its not possible to do with satellites I suspect, but if it is true it means we need to massively rethink Fu et al. type analysis at least in the tropics) and would be interested in helping someone follow up on that ... I think in the future the Forster et al paper may be seen as the more scientifically significant result when Douglass et al is no longer cared about ... Happy new year to you all. Peter -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\qbo_slide.ppt" 1082. 2008-01-02 11:46:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:46:24 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: urban stuff to: Susan Solomon Susan Not me. Phil has been involved in various stuff related to this but I am not up to speed. I'll cc him. I recall some exchanges a while ago now. Kevin Susan Solomon wrote: > Kevin > Happy new year to you. All's well here. Have you or other > colleagues organized a rebuttal to the McKitrick and Michaels JGR 2007 > material on urbanization? It's getting exposure, along with the > Douglass et al. paper. On the latter, you probably know Ben Santer is > preparing one. > best > Susan -- **************** 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 733. 2008-01-02 13:54:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley , "Thomas.R.Karl" , 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'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , myles , Bill Fulkerson date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:54:59 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear Ben, Thanks for your query. A number of the AR4 models have included ozone climatologies but only a partial description of the trends .e.g, some use Randel and Wu; CCSM used the one we developed with Jeff Kiehl. These had quite good ozone losses in the extratropics but do not include the observed losses below 20 km in the tropics. So they did not simulate the effect seen in Forster et al. The lower tropical ozone losses have long been viewed as 'possible but controversial' and hence left out of the earlier ozone trend climatologies. Better ozone measurements now make it much clearer to me that these tropical trends are real and should not be ignored. The most recent Randel and Wu paper includes it, but that is not what was used in the AR4 models. Of course, if you have extratropical ozone losses, that will have some effect on the global mean temperatures. But the tropical ozone effects can exert a huge influence on the global mean (e.g., tropics is about half the global area average; the Antarctic ozone hole, impressive as it is, and nicely included as it is in models, is a good deal less than 10% of the global area average). best Susan At 12:42 PM -0800 1/2/08, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Susan, > >Many thanks for your email, which has stimulated >a lot of interesting discussion in our little >"focus group". I had a quick question. Your >email implies that none of the AR4 models >"prescribes an observed tropical ozone trend" in >the 20c3m simulations. Is this correct? About >half of the AR4 models prescribe stratospheric >ozone changes in their 20c3m runs (e.g., CCSM3, >PCM, GFDLCM2.0, GFDLCM2.1, GISS-EH and GISS-ER, >HadGEM1). In these simulations, are ozone trends >in the tropics set to zero? We will check this >in the next few days. I note that a number of >AR4 models also include some estimate of >observed changes in tropospheric ozone, obtained >with different chemical transport models. > >In both the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper and >Chapter 5 of the CCSP "Vertical Temperature >trends" report, we did attempt to partition the >model simulations into groups with and without >forcing by stratospheric ozone changes. For >example, in footnote #53 of CCSP Chapter 5 (page >110), we noted that: > >"Due to ozone-induced cooling of the lower >stratosphere, the model-average T2 trend is >slightly smaller (0.12 degrees C/decade) and >closer to the RSS result if it is estimated from >the subset of 20CEN runs that include >stratospheric ozone depletion. Subsetting in >this way has little impact on the model-average >T2LT and T*G trends." (T*G denotes a >layer-averaged (global-mean) tropospheric >temperature computed using the Fu et al. method) > >As we've pointed out in previous papers (most >recently in our water vapor D&A paper), one of >the problems with such subsetting exercises is >that they do not cleanly isolate the effect of >an individual forcing. > >Best regards and best wishes for 2008, > >Ben >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) > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 800. 2008-01-02 14:24:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jan 2 14:24:57 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: RE: More nonsense on climate change to: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Chris, I began by accepting everything as it was easier to read then. The only mistake I then found was that the 3rd bullet said 2007 when it should have been 2008, as that is was we're talking about. I have added in all the tilde's and an 's' at the end of your quote. I have also modified my quote at the end to make it clearer. I have also added the word 'not' that I intended to the other day! A couple of things 1. Added a comment - could say in 3rd bullet that 1998 was so warm because of the record 97/98 El Nino. 2. Could add a website in the press release that appears on the Met Office site to a web site where the earlier forecasts might be accessible? This isn't essential - it is just that the skeptics won't believe your 0.07 accuracy number. If a page was mentioned it might shut them up - unlikely I know! Let me know when you're due to release this and I can get UEA to send it out from here - locally in East Anglia - tomorrow. Cheers Phil PS The Climate Audit web site has just discovered the FAQs from AR4! They began by saying these hadn't been approved, but several people have told them they were in the various chapter drafts. They are now complaining that they differ from the last govt review! It is impossible to win with these people. The FAQs were altered - but only by a science writer and the CLAs to make them more easy to read. If the science writer changed the sense, we changed it back. Dear Phil Ive left your comments in but dealt with most of them We must not make this release too complicated. Before Xmas on my PC I had a very provisional set of HadCRUT3 values. The average magnitude of the error is actually 0.07C. This has lead to some further minor changes. Please make any further changes in tracker and I will send it to the Press Office this afternoon for final discussions tomorrow. 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 -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[2]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 30 December 2007 20:21 To: Folland, Chris Subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change Chris, Here's a few thoughts on the press release. Only got back today. I'll be in CRU on Jan 2, so we can finalise this then. I need to work out the values for 2001-7 and 1991-2000, but we might be using different versions of the GLT record - you may be adjusting for 1961-90 not being quite zero. The SH oceans have oooled off a lot in late 2007. Reword my quote if you want. Trying to say that if we got a very warm year in 2008 as a result of an El Nino event it wouldn't mak any difference scientifically to a cooler 2008 due to La Nina. It might politically but we don't do that ... Have a great New Year ! Cheers Phil > Phil > > Please see the draft global temp forecast. Changes and additions in > tracker please. Some numbers are approximate if close, as I'm having > difficulties accessing some Met Office web sites from home today. The > forecast value may change slightly when updated on Jan 2. We have yet > to fully agree the DePreSys decadal forecast system value (a third of > the weight of the forecast) as Andrew Colman and Doug Smith have a > discepency of 0.03C when apparently doing the same calculation. > > Take your time - hope to get back to the Press Office with a revision > including the numbers by cop Jan 2. > > Happy Xmas > > 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) > <[3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > Fellow > of the Met Office Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, > University of East Anglia > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Phil Jones [[4]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 21 December 2007 12:58 > To: Folland, Chris > Subject: RE: More nonsense on climate change > > > > Chris, > David seems to be doing something sooner on this last 10 years > trend. > > In what you do, this point may be relevant. 0.2 deg C per decade is > roughly what we're warming at (it's a bit lower I know), so annually > this is 0.02 per year. This is less than half the error on the Global > T estimates (even the one SE). > > So all these arguments/comments are stupid. > > Have a great Christmas and New Year ! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:17 20/12/2007, you wrote: > > > Phil > > I am working on the draft Press release tomorrow morning. Will send a > draft to you. The forecast will be issued 4 Jan. Soon (feb) I will be > starting the global temperature forecasting paper. It will discuss > these issues. Might go for GRL to quicken it up. Have to see. > > 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) > < [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk <[6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/> > > Fellow of the Met Office > Hon. Professor of School of Environmental Sciences, University of > East Anglia > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Phil Jones [ [7]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk > <[8]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk> ] > Sent: 20 December 2007 15:59 > To: Parker, David; Folland, Chris > Subject: Fwd: More nonsense on climate change > > > David, Chris > Been in touch with Bob - and told him that when you add in errors > then you can't say that any of the 10-year trends are significant. > 1998-2007 > values do have a positive trend, but it isn't significant - and > certainly not when considering > the errors. > I'm fed up hearing this story. It has been doing the rounds now > for more than > a year. > I was wondering if there is anything we can do about it. > We could develop > histograms for all 10-year trends for 1850-1859 to 1998-2007 with > and without > considering the errors. Most will be non-significant, so just > showing how > many there are that are significant might be useful. > Another way is to look at non-overlapping decades. 1998-2007 will > be > warmer than 1988-1997 for example, and it is the decade timescale > that is > important and not interannual. > > Another idea is that old chestnut of extracting the SOI > influence from the record. > Maybe Dave Thompson's work will go some way towards this by > extracting > ENSO and COWL. This has the benefit of down-weighting 1998. > > Maybe we should add something to the press release in early Jan > on your > forecast for next year - if you're doing one. > > People in the know in the climate field understand, but this story > won't go away. > I'm sure Nigel Lawson will spout it again in the Lords when they > come to debate > the new govt emission controls on CO2 > > Have a good Christmas and New Year break! > > I'll have New Year's wish not to hear this story again - I expect > it won't > be long before it's broken! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > Subject: More nonsense on climate change > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:32:08 -0000 > X-MS-Has-Attach: > X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: > Thread-Topic: More nonsense on climate change > Thread-Index: AchDBFYEH11uRYdfTTGoWFQrAv04sQ== > From: "Bob Ward" > To: "Phil Jones" > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2007 12:32:10.0737 (UTC) > FILETIME=[5785B610:01C84304] > X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.0 > X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ > X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > Dear Phil, > > I was wondering whether you have seen the article by David > Whitehouse in the latest edition of 'New Statesman'? > [9]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 > > [10]www.rms.com <[11]http://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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---- > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2489. 2008-01-02 14:53:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley ,"Thomas.R.Karl" , John.Lanzante@noaa.gov,"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 , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn ,Tom Wigley , myles ,Bill Fulkerson date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:53:02 -0800 from: carl mears subject: Re: Douglass et al. paper to: santer1@llnl.gov,Susan Solomon Hi All GRL just published our paper on correlations between MSU/AMSU tropospheric temperatures and total column water vaper over the tropical oceans (attached). One more piece of evidence that models and observations are not completely out to lunch. Depending on where your faith lies, this paper either 1. Uses observed data to validate the water vapor/temperature scaling in models. or...... 2. Uses the robust vapor/temperature scaling from models to suggest that large errors are not present in either of the most recent MSU/AMSU TLT products. I'm something of an agnostic when it comes to both models and data, so my view of it lies somewhere on the continuum between these two statements. -Carl Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mears_2007gl031936.pdf" 2284. 2008-01-02 20:52:31 ______________________________________________________ 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'" , Sherwood Steven , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Tom Wigley , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:52:31 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: More significance testing stuff to: "Thomas.R.Karl" Dear Tom, In the end, I decided to test the significance of trends in the O(t) minus M(t) difference time series, as you and John Lanzante have suggested. I still think that this "difference series test" is more appropriate when one is operating on a pair of time series with correlated variability (for example, if you wished to test whether an observed tropical T2LT trend was significantly different from the T2LT trend simulated in an AMIP experiment). But you and John convinced me that our response to Douglass et al. would be strengthened by using several different approaches to address the statistical significance of differences between modeled and observed temperature trends. The Tables given below show the results from two different types of test. You've already seen the "TYPE1" or "PAIRED TREND" results. These involve b{O} and b{M}, which represent any single pair of Observed and Modeled trends, with standard errors s{bO} and s{bM} (which are adjusted for temporal autocorrelation effects). As in our previous work (and as in related work by John Lanzante), we define the normalized trend difference d as: d1 = (b{O} - b{M}) / sqrt[ (s{bO})**2 + (s{bM})**2 ] Under the assumption that d1 is normally distributed, values of d1 > +1.96 or < -1.96 indicate observed-minus-model trend differences that are significant at the 5% level, and one can easily calculate a p-value for each value of d. These p-values for the 98 pairs of trend tests (49 involving UAH data and 49 involving RSS data) are what we use for determining the total number of "hits", or rejections of the null hypothesis of no significant difference between modeled and observed trends. I note that each test is two-tailed, 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). The "TYPE2" results are the "DIFFERENCE SERIES" tests. These involve O(t) and M(t), which represent any single pair of modeled and observed layer-averaged temperature time series. One first defines the difference time series D(t) = O(t) - M(t), and then calculates the trend b{D} in D(t) and its adjusted standard error, s{bD}. The test statistic is then simply d2 = b{D} / s{bD}. As in the case of the "PAIRED TREND" tests, we assume that d2 is normally distributed, and then calculate p-values for the 98 pairs of difference series tests. As I mentioned in a previous email, the interpretation of the "DIFFERENCE SERIES" tests is a little complicated. Over half (35) of the 49 model simulations examined in the CCSP report include some form of volcanic forcing. In these 35 cases, differencing the O(t) and M(t) time series reduces the amplitude of this externally-forced component in D(t). This will tend to reduce the overall temporal variability of D(t), and hence reduce s{bD}, the standard error of the trend in D(t). Such noise reduction should make it easier to identify true differences in the anthropogenically-forced components of b{O} and b{D}. But since the internally-generated variability in O(t) and M(t) is uncorrelated, differencing O(t) and M(t) has the opposite effect of amplifying the noise, thus inflating s{bD} and making it more difficult to identify model-versus-observed trend differences. The results given below show that the "PAIRED TREND" and "DIFFERENCE SERIES" tests yield very similar rejection rates of the null hypothesis. The bottom line is that, regardless of which test we use, which significance level we stipulate, which observational dataset we use, or which atmospheric layer we focus on, there is no evidence to support Douglass et al.'s assertion that all "UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model results". REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 5% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" 1. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE1) 49 x 2 (98) 2 (2.04%) 1 (1.02%) 2. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE2) 49 x 2 (98) 2 (2.04%) 2 (2.04%) REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 10% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" 1. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE1) 49 x 2 (98) 4 (4.08%) 2 (2.04%) 2. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE2) 49 x 2 (98) 3 (3.06%) 3 (3.06%) REJECTION RATES FOR STIPULATED 20% SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL Test type No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" 1. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE1) 49 x 2 (98) 7 (7.14%) 5 (5.10%) 2. OBS-vs-MODEL (TYPE2) 49 x 2 (98) 10 (10.20%) 7 (7.14%) As I've mentioned in previous emails, I think it's a little tricky to figure out the null distribution of rejection rates - i.e., the distribution that might be expected by chance alone. My gut feeling is that this is easiest to do by generating distributions of the d1 and d2 statistics using model control run data only. Use of Monte Carlo procedures gets into issues of whether one should use "block resampling", and attempt to preserve the characteristic decorrelation times of the model and observational data being tested, etc., etc. Thanks very much to all of you for your advice and comments. I still believe that there is considerable merit in a brief response to Douglass et al. I think this could be done relatively quickly. From my perspective, this response should highlight four issues: 1) It should identify the flaws in the statistical approach used by Douglass et al. to compare modeled and observed trends. 2) It should do the significance testing properly, and report on the results of "PAIRED TREND" and "DIFFERENCE SERIES" tests. 3) It should show something similar to the figure that Leo recently distributed (i.e., zonal-mean trend profiles in various versions of the RAOBCORE data), and highlight the fact that the structural uncertainty in sonde-based estimates of tropospheric temperature change is much larger than was claimed in Douglass et al. 4) It should note and discuss the considerable body of "complementary evidence" supporting the finding that the tropical lower troposphere has warmed over the satellite era. With best regards, Ben Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > Thanks Ben, > > You have been busy! I sent Tom an email before reading the last > paragraph of this note. Recognizing the "random" placement of ENSO in > the models and volcanic effects (in a few) and the known impact of the > occurrence of these events on the trends, I think it is appropriate that > the noise and related uncertainty about the trend differences be > increased. Amplifying the noise could be argued as an appropriate > conservative approach, since we know that these events are confounding > our efforts to see differences between models and obs w/r to greenhouse > forcing. > > I know it is more work, but I think it does make sense to calculate > O(1)-M(1), O(2)-M(2) .... O(n)-M(n) for all combinations of observed > data sets and model simulations. You could test for significance by > using a Monte Carlo bootstrap approach by randomizing the years for both > models and data. > > Regards, Tom > > > Ben Santer said the following on 12/26/2007 9:50 PM: >> 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 >>> >> >> > > -- > > *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 > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 883. 2008-01-03 10:15:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 3 10:15:12 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: French stuff (+ 3 PDFs) to: Edouard BARD Hi Edouard, I saw some of these on the Real Climate web site. I also saw that Climate Audit also picked it up. They agreed with Pierrehumbert, but seemed to want to turn it into a pantomime (particularly English thing) and also a French Farce. Anyway it seems as though someone tracked down where Courtillot had got his data from. It did come from here, but it was on the NGDC site and it was only for the land N of 20N and just for April to September. So it wasn't what they said. Climate Audit tried to make something of this, but why not just take it from the CRU web site - like you did! Anyway I hope it doesn't run any more as well! Happy New Year. Cheers Phil PS Over Christmas I got these two emails from EPSL about 2 papers I reviewed and rejected. I'll forward just for you. I'm reviewer # 1, but there is an interesting note linking the editor to Courtillot. At 18:15 02/01/2008, you wrote: Bonsoir Phil, The media cover has been incredible, among others: [1]http://www.20minutes.fr/article/202189/Sciences-Les-sceptiques-francais-du-climat-acc uses-de-tricherie.php [2]http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3244,36-991405@51-853716,0.html [3]http://www.liberation.fr/transversales/futur/298894.FR.php There is also a long article in the third prominent French newspaper (Le Figaro, see attached PDF). Note that all these articles only describe the controversy from the "outside", i.e. without having me as a direct participant. Indeed, I don't want to be responsibe for unproven accusations of wrong doing. I also declined all sollicitations by medias (notably TV and radios). Hoping that this story will not lead to further problems, I wish you the best for this New Year 2008. Cheers, Edouard >Edouard, All the best for Christmas and the New Year! I don't regularly look at the Real Climate, but have done today. Ray Pierrehumbert has produced a great summary of the Courtillot et al. papers in EPSL (and your response). I had no idea the editor could remove a note added in proof, nor that he knew Courtillot et al either. It becomes a little clearer now, why I was getting emails from the editor. At least we all now know where the global T record came from. I had an email from a Swiss journalist a week ago. I will forward him the link. He wanted to refer to the article, but said it was awful and he should refer to this one attached by Lockwood and Frohlich. Mike Lockwood has two more in submission to the same journal, expanding on the ideas in this paper. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [4]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4576. 2008-01-03 15:15:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Thu Jan 3 15:15:19 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: A thought and GDP and Education? to: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, Rasmus Benestad Gavin, Hope you do something. The other Dutch paper is much the same. MM try to use it as support for their work, but it appears to work for the same invalid reasons. The significance testing assuming that all the points are independent just seems wrong to me. The 440 points can't be independent of each other. One way of guessing what the right number is to put the data through a PCA and then see how many PCs are significant - using a conservative rule. I'd not taken in the significance of their e term (for education) before. As g (GDP) and e must be fairly strongly correlated positively (more GDP more literacy/education), then why are their coefficients the opposite sign? I'm assuming here higher e means higher literacy/better education? They divide GDP by area, but even then it should still be correlated with e. So why should the e relationship be -ve and the g relationship +ve with the temperature residuals. What if you try running the regressions with g or e but not both? It is easier to cope with multicollinearity by using PC regression. Do the regression after doing a PCA on the RHS variables. This is done in most paleo reconstruction work. If you've run with RSS, then useful to show these results alongside UAH. By the way, hope to send you the Wengen paper by the end of the month ! Cheers Phil At 14:11 03/01/2008, Gavin Schmidt wrote: Hi Phil, I've been looking at this a little. The correlations to GDP and education in M&M are robust to changes to RSS or updates of the CRU or GISTEMP data, but the other economic 'significant' variables are not. More interestingly, the net effect of their correlations is to focus on very restricted spatial areas and as you know, the smaller the area the less powerful any attribution can be. Thus in climate model results you see a wide range of correlations - some easily as signficant as those shown in M&M. The conclusions are unsupportable, but I'm still thinking about the best way to demonstrate this. I anticipate this will be a new paper that takes in the de Laat and Maurellis (2006) paper as well (also a statistical fluke). Gavin *--------------------------------------------------------------------* | Gavin Schmidt NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies | | 2880 Broadway | | Tel: (212) 678 5627 New York, NY 10025 | | | | gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov [1]http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin | *--------------------------------------------------------------------* On Thu, 3 Jan 2008, Rasmus Benestad wrote: Dear Phil, I wish you a happy new year, although the death of Bert Bolin was a really sad start. Funny you mention this, as we have been thinking about this, and I have recived the same request by Ross McCitrick himself (!) - see below. Gavin has a very clever take on this (repeating the analysis on GCM results - not affected by the economic factors - and getting similar 'answers'...), and we are thinking about drafting a comment about it. The Douglas et al paper is already commented in another post on RealClimate: [2]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/lan gswitch_lang/sw Perhaps we were a bit naughty posting it before the release of the paper? All the best! Rasmus Phil Jones wrote: Rasmus, Have had an email from Susan Solomon about this paper. She wonders if I'd considered doing a response. I replied saying I'd see if you were doing anything - more than what you've put onto Real Climate? I reckon if the analysis was redone with the RSS satellite data, any significance for the supposed economic growth indices would go away. And then there are the myriad of things you mentioned earlier. There is a group working on another awful paper by Douglass et al. which is in press in IJC. Sad day - hearing of the death of Bert Bolin. All the best for the New Year 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Rasmus I hope you have had a Merry Christmas. Here in Ontario it was a very white Christmas, the way I prefer it, and we have been enjoying the snow and the skating rink outside. It seems to me that your main technical concerns about my paper with Pat was the possible spatial autocorrelation. I have posted a paper about this issue at my web site. [3]http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/jgr07.html (scroll down a bit) I submitted it to JGR, however, they said that it is not sufficient as a stand-alone paper. The editor said it is a response to critical comments, but since the comments have not been submitted they cannot proceed with it. Occasionally, an author will submit a Comment on a paper published, challenging the use of a certain technique by the authors of the original paper. We then facilitate correspondence between the scientists involved, publishing that correspondence in the form of a Comment and Response. Your manuscript has the flavour of the 'Response' but there are no scientists that have prepared a 'Comment' to challenge your original paper. Therefore, I don't see how I can publish the current manuscript. So, I was wondering if you would be willing to write your Real Climate posting up as a comment and submit it to JGR, and then we might be able to get an exchange published, which would probably be of interest to our readers. In the meantime, Happy New Year! Cheers, Ross Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3872. 2008-01-04 12:42:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 12:42:38 +0100 from: Thorsten Kiefer subject: Wengen ms to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, happy New Year for a start ... ... and then of course comes immediately my standard query on the Wengen manuscript. I hope that you will be able to get this done in January. During the AGU week in December I had visted Larry Williams and colleagues at EPRI. It is obvious that getting this manuscript submitted in January is critical to future support of the larger PAGES/CLIVAR Group. Therefore, I would argue to submit in Jan, even if it was not perfect. Do you think this will be possible? Cheers Thorsten On 4 Dec 2007, at 14:35, Thorsten Kiefer wrote: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1069. 2008-01-07 12:54:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:54:48 -0000 from: "Bob Ward" subject: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, Happy New Year! I am forwarding an exchange of e-mails I had with David Whitehouse last week about the Met Office's press release on 2008 global temperatures. You will see that he is persisting with his stupid argument that global warming ended in 2001 - he is still managing to sway people with his argument, and it is the same as Christopher Booker is using virtually every week in 'The Sunday Telegraph'. So I am planning to go public over my argument with Whitehouse and to take Booker to the Press Complaints Commission. To do this, I need to be able to scotch their argument. I think the best way in which I might be able to do this is by showing that if you take virtually any consecutive seven-year period since 1850 you find that the uncertainties overlap, making them "statistically indistinguishable", but this does not mean that temperatures haven't changed since 1850. So, do you know how I might be able to obtain a version of the attached graph, but with the years in chronological order? 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 -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 12:30 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? You are missing the point as usual and don't address criticisms, we are going round in circles. The Met Office Press release could just as easily be titled "UK scientists predict global temperature standstill to continue for 8th year." Didn't you read it and see that the Met Office has admitted that global warming ended in 2001? Statistically indistinguishable they said. It is an observational fact. Whether it will pick up again remains to be seen. It's not an unimportant question and it's not diminished by talking about longer term trends. Dismiss the 2001-7 standstill and you must have less faith in the significance of the 1980-1998 warming period. -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward Sent: 04 January 2008 11:17 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? You are right that Profs Folland and Jones, who are quoted in the media release, are well known for spin! If only they would admit that global warming ended in 2001! But congratulations on moving the end of global warming three years forward from 1998 - I guess that represents some sort of progress. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 10:35 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Short time series! The latest current global warming period began in 1980. It was the early 1990's when we realised it was a definite warming trend and for half of the period since then the global average temperature has been at a standstill - it's ALL short time series but there is detail in it and curiously the static last few years are the least noisy section of this particular data series. You are seeing what you want to see in the figures, like the spin from Met Office Press dept. Of course 2001-7 is warmer than previous years, by how much depends upon over what timescale you calculate the average but, as the Met office says, it's the underlying rate of warming that is important and they say that since 2001 it is ZERO. That's what they say which you said was inaccurate and misleading. Confused yes. If you go by facts and data and not hearsay you will see that the Met Office, NASA, NOAA and the NCDC all agree that the global average temperature has been static since 2001. They just don't say so in headlines but in the data or in 'notes to editors' like the latest Met Office Press release. -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward Sent: 04 January 2008 10:13 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Happy New Year to David Whitehouse and other ABSW list subscribers! I thought that there was a sentiment before New Year that debates about trivia, like climate change science, should be relegated to a web forum so that e-mail exchanges could focus on more weighty issues, like best broadband deals, etc. Anyway, I am grateful to David for demonstrating how it is still possible to confuse people about basic climate change science, like global temperature records, by using a short time series and large uncertainties to ensure that noisy data obscures any possible signal. David could perhaps have quoted this from the same media release: "What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000." It is a scandal that the Met Office, the Climatic Research Unit, NOAA, NASA, WMO etc aren't willing to tell us that global warming has stopped! Thank heavens there are still a few science writers around to expose this global conspiracy within the research community! 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 -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 01:10 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Greetings folks, I hesitate to enter the fray on this topic but last week it was said on this list; "It is a sad reflection on the state of science journalism in the UK in 2007 that we are still seeing misleading and inaccurate articles in the media that, for instance, claim global average temperatures stopped rising in 1998, or that changes in solar activity explain the recent change in temperature. It would be good if 2008 saw some of the so-called scepticism that has been expressed about climate change science applied to some of these alternative claims which, frankly, have little or no evidence supporting them." Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? This week the Met Office said; "The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data." http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html They say 2008 will have a strong la Nina cooling. The Met Office has commented before on the 2001-7 data set being statistically indistinguishable. The same thing has also been said many times by the US National Climatic Data Center. Note that 1998 was a record warm year (El Nino) followed by two relatively cool years. Whatever your 'sceptical' viewpoint, if you have one, or whatever the reason or the eventual duration, this is what the data says. Both the US and the UK's guardians of annual global average temperature data say that the data for 2001-2007 are statistically indistinguishable - it's warmer than it used to be but the annual average global temperatures have, er frankly, stopped rising. Regards, David. http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: http://absw.blogspot.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. __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: http://absw.blogspot.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. __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: http://absw.blogspot.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. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\pr20071213.gif" 4890. 2008-01-07 13:40:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jan 7 13:40:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? to: chris.folland@metoffice.gov.uk Misspelt Office ! Chris - Bob is OK. Used to be the press person for the Royal Society Works for Risk Management Solutions now - but blogs in his spare time. How anyone can misinterpret what we said is beyond me ! Cheers Phil Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:37:43 +0000 To: "Bob Ward" From: Phil Jones Subject: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Cc: David Parker , "Kennedy, John" , chris.folland@metoffcie.gov.uk Bob, I'm cc'ing the reply to David Parker and John Kennedy. The numbers for each year are on this web page. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt The final number on every other line is what you want. 1998 is 0.526 for example. I don't have the error ranges for each year, but I think David or John can easily send you these. Use their values if they disagree slightly with those on the CRU web site. When you get them you will see the errors are larger the further back in time you go. Some years stand out from others (El Nino years). I spent about 15 minutes working on that one sentence quote. As you know it doesn't mean that global warming has stopped. The whole point of it was to show that 2001-2007 is 0.21 warmer than 1991-2000. The rate of warming should be about 0.2 per decade and it is bang on. If the world were warming faster than this - then I'd be worried! What you could do is to take all 7 years averages and compare with the previous 10 year average., so start in 1861. Then build up a distribution of these values. You need to allow for the overlapping years, as all the values you get aren't independent. This aspect will be lost on Whitehouse, though ! David, John and Chris might also be able to advise. Cheers Phil At 12:54 07/01/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Happy New Year! I am forwarding an exchange of e-mails I had with David Whitehouse last week about the Met Office's press release on 2008 global temperatures. You will see that he is persisting with his stupid argument that global warming ended in 2001 - he is still managing to sway people with his argument, and it is the same as Christopher Booker is using virtually every week in 'The Sunday Telegraph'. So I am planning to go public over my argument with Whitehouse and to take Booker to the Press Complaints Commission. To do this, I need to be able to scotch their argument. I think the best way in which I might be able to do this is by showing that if you take virtually any consecutive seven-year period since 1850 you find that the uncertainties overlap, making them "statistically indistinguishable", but this does not mean that temperatures haven't changed since 1850. So, do you know how I might be able to obtain a version of the attached graph, but with the years in chronological order? 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 -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[3]mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 12:30 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? You are missing the point as usual and don't address criticisms, we are going round in circles. The Met Office Press release could just as easily be titled "UK scientists predict global temperature standstill to continue for 8th year." Didn't you read it and see that the Met Office has admitted that global warming ended in 2001? Statistically indistinguishable they said. It is an observational fact. Whether it will pick up again remains to be seen. It's not an unimportant question and it's not diminished by talking about longer term trends. Dismiss the 2001-7 standstill and you must have less faith in the significance of the 1980-1998 warming period. -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[4]mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward Sent: 04 January 2008 11:17 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? You are right that Profs Folland and Jones, who are quoted in the media release, are well known for spin! If only they would admit that global warming ended in 2001! But congratulations on moving the end of global warming three years forward from 1998 - I guess that represents some sort of progress. 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 [5]www.rms.com -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[6]mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 10:35 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Short time series! The latest current global warming period began in 1980. It was the early 1990's when we realised it was a definite warming trend and for half of the period since then the global average temperature has been at a standstill - it's ALL short time series but there is detail in it and curiously the static last few years are the least noisy section of this particular data series. You are seeing what you want to see in the figures, like the spin from Met Office Press dept. Of course 2001-7 is warmer than previous years, by how much depends upon over what timescale you calculate the average but, as the Met office says, it's the underlying rate of warming that is important and they say that since 2001 it is ZERO. That's what they say which you said was inaccurate and misleading. Confused yes. If you go by facts and data and not hearsay you will see that the Met Office, NASA, NOAA and the NCDC all agree that the global average temperature has been static since 2001. They just don't say so in headlines but in the data or in 'notes to editors' like the latest Met Office Press release. -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[7]mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward Sent: 04 January 2008 10:13 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Happy New Year to David Whitehouse and other ABSW list subscribers! I thought that there was a sentiment before New Year that debates about trivia, like climate change science, should be relegated to a web forum so that e-mail exchanges could focus on more weighty issues, like best broadband deals, etc. Anyway, I am grateful to David for demonstrating how it is still possible to confuse people about basic climate change science, like global temperature records, by using a short time series and large uncertainties to ensure that noisy data obscures any possible signal. David could perhaps have quoted this from the same media release: "What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000." It is a scandal that the Met Office, the Climatic Research Unit, NOAA, NASA, WMO etc aren't willing to tell us that global warming has stopped! Thank heavens there are still a few science writers around to expose this global conspiracy within the research community! 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 [8]www.rms.com -----Original Message----- From: Association of British Science Writers [[9]mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse Sent: 04 January 2008 01:10 To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK Subject: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? Greetings folks, I hesitate to enter the fray on this topic but last week it was said on this list; "It is a sad reflection on the state of science journalism in the UK in 2007 that we are still seeing misleading and inaccurate articles in the media that, for instance, claim global average temperatures stopped rising in 1998, or that changes in solar activity explain the recent change in temperature. It would be good if 2008 saw some of the so-called scepticism that has been expressed about climate change science applied to some of these alternative claims which, frankly, have little or no evidence supporting them." Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? This week the Met Office said; "The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is considered indistinguishable from any of the years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data." [10]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html They say 2008 will have a strong la Nina cooling. The Met Office has commented before on the 2001-7 data set being statistically indistinguishable. The same thing has also been said many times by the US National Climatic Data Center. Note that 1998 was a record warm year (El Nino) followed by two relatively cool years. Whatever your 'sceptical' viewpoint, if you have one, or whatever the reason or the eventual duration, this is what the data says. Both the US and the UK's guardians of annual global average temperature data say that the data for 2001-2007 are statistically indistinguishable - it's warmer than it used to be but the annual average global temperatures have, er frankly, stopped rising. Regards, David. [11]http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [12]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [13]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [14]http://absw.blogspot.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. __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [15]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [16]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [17]http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [18]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [19]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [20]http://absw.blogspot.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. __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [21]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [22]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [23]http://absw.blogspot.com/ __________________________________________________________________ Read the message archive and manage your subscription: [24]http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html Even more information on how to manage your subscription: [25]http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm Check the experimental blog: [26]http://absw.blogspot.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1643. 2008-01-07 14:04:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: Bob Ward , "Kennedy, John" , chris.folland@metoffcie.gov.uk date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:04:44 +0000 from: David Parker subject: Re: FW: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? to: "Jones, Phil" Bob John may be able to provide November and, soon, December 2007 to make 2007 complete David On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 13:37 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > Bob, > I'm cc'ing the reply to David Parker and > John Kennedy. The numbers for each > year are on this web page. > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt > > The final number on every other line is what > you want. 1998 is 0.526 for example. > > I don't have the error ranges for each year, > but I think David or John can easily send you these. > Use their values if they disagree slightly with those on the CRU web site. > > When you get them you will see the errors are > larger the further back in time you go. > > Some years stand out from others (El Nino years). > > > I spent about 15 minutes working on that one > sentence quote. As you know it doesn't > mean that global warming has stopped. The whole > point of it was to show that 2001-2007 > is 0.21 warmer than 1991-2000. The rate of > warming should be about 0.2 per decade > and it is bang on. > > If the world were warming faster than this - then I'd be worried! > > What you could do is to take all 7 years > averages and compare with the previous > 10 year average., so start in 1861. Then build > up a distribution of these values. You > need to allow for the overlapping years, as all > the values you get aren't independent. > This aspect will be lost on Whitehouse, though ! > > David, John and Chris might also be able to advise. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 12:54 07/01/2008, you wrote: > >Dear Phil, > > > >Happy New Year! > > > >I am forwarding an exchange of e-mails I had > >with David Whitehouse last week about the Met > >Office's press release on 2008 global > >temperatures. You will see that he is persisting > >with his stupid argument that global warming > >ended in 2001 - he is still managing to sway > >people with his argument, and it is the same as > >Christopher Booker is using virtually every week in 'The Sunday Telegraph'. > > > >So I am planning to go public over my argument > >with Whitehouse and to take Booker to the Press > >Complaints Commission. To do this, I need to be > >able to scotch their argument. I think the best > >way in which I might be able to do this is by > >showing that if you take virtually any > >consecutive seven-year period since 1850 you > >find that the uncertainties overlap, making them > >"statistically indistinguishable", but this does > >not mean that temperatures haven't changed since > >1850. So, do you know how I might be able to > >obtain a version of the attached graph, but with > >the years in chronological order? > > > >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 > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 12:30 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >You are missing the point as usual and don't > >address criticisms, we are going round in > >circles. The Met Office Press release could just > >as easily be titled "UK scientists predict > >global temperature standstill to continue for > >8th year." Didn't you read it and see that the > >Met Office has admitted that global warming > >ended in 2001? Statistically indistinguishable > >they said. It is an observational fact. Whether > >it will pick up again remains to be seen. > >It's not an unimportant question and it's not > >diminished by talking about longer term trends. > >Dismiss the 2001-7 standstill and you must have > >less faith in the significance of the 1980-1998 warming period. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward > >Sent: 04 January 2008 11:17 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >You are right that Profs Folland and Jones, who > >are quoted in the media release, are well known > >for spin! If only they would admit that global warming ended in 2001! > > > >But congratulations on moving the end of global > >warming three years forward from 1998 - I guess > >that represents some sort of progress. > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 10:35 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Short time series! The latest current global warming period began in 1980. > >It was the early 1990's when we realised it was > >a definite warming trend and for half of the > >period since then the global average temperature > >has been at a standstill - it's ALL short time > >series but there is detail in it and curiously > >the static last few years are the least noisy > >section of this particular data series. You are > >seeing what you want to see in the figures, like > >the spin from Met Office Press dept. Of course > >2001-7 is warmer than previous years, by how > >much depends upon over what timescale you > >calculate the average but, as the Met office > >says, it's the underlying rate of warming that > >is important and they say that since 2001 it is > >ZERO. That's what they say which you said was > >inaccurate and misleading. Confused yes. > > > >If you go by facts and data and not hearsay you > >will see that the Met Office, NASA, NOAA and the > >NCDC all agree that the global average > >temperature has been static since 2001. They > >just don't say so in headlines but in the data > >or in 'notes to editors' like the latest Met Office Press release. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bob Ward > >Sent: 04 January 2008 10:13 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Re: [ABSW-L] Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Happy New Year to David Whitehouse and other ABSW list subscribers! > > > >I thought that there was a sentiment before New > >Year that debates about trivia, like climate > >change science, should be relegated to a web > >forum so that e-mail exchanges could focus on > >more weighty issues, like best broadband deals, etc. > > > >Anyway, I am grateful to David for demonstrating > >how it is still possible to confuse people about > >basic climate change science, like global > >temperature records, by using a short time > >series and large uncertainties to ensure that > >noisy data obscures any possible signal. > > > >David could perhaps have quoted this from the same media release: > > > >"What matters is the underlying rate of warming > >- the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 > >°C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer > >than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000." > > > >It is a scandal that the Met Office, the > >Climatic Research Unit, NOAA, NASA, WMO etc > >aren't willing to tell us that global warming > >has stopped! Thank heavens there are still a few > >science writers around to expose this global > >conspiracy within the research community! > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Association of British Science Writers > >[mailto:ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK] On Behalf Of David Whitehouse > >Sent: 04 January 2008 01:10 > >To: ABSW-L@LISTSERV.CCLRC.AC.UK > >Subject: Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >Greetings folks, > > > >I hesitate to enter the fray on this topic but > >last week it was said on this list; > > > >"It is a sad reflection on the state of science > >journalism in the UK in 2007 that we are still > >seeing misleading and inaccurate articles in the > >media that, for instance, claim global average > >temperatures stopped rising in 1998, or that > >changes in solar activity explain the recent > >change in temperature. It would be good if 2008 > >saw some of the so-called scepticism that has > >been expressed about climate change science > >applied to some of these alternative claims > >which, frankly, have little or no evidence supporting them." > > > >Misleading, inaccurate, little or no evidence? > > > >This week the Met Office said; > > > >"The forecast value for 2008 mean temperature is > >considered indistinguishable from any of the > >years 2001-7, given the uncertainties in the data." > > > >http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html > > > >They say 2008 will have a strong la Nina > >cooling. The Met Office has commented before on > >the 2001-7 data set being statistically indistinguishable. > > > >The same thing has also been said many times by > >the US National Climatic Data Center. > > > >Note that 1998 was a record warm year (El Nino) > >followed by two relatively cool years. Whatever > >your 'sceptical' viewpoint, if you have one, or > >whatever the reason or the eventual duration, this is what the data says. > >Both the US and the UK's guardians of annual > >global average temperature data say that the > >data for 2001-2007 are statistically > >indistinguishable - it's warmer than it used to > >be but the annual average global temperatures have, er frankly, stopped rising. > > > >Regards, > > > >David. > > > >http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004 > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.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. > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.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. > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.com/ > > > >__________________________________________________________________ > >Read the message archive and manage your subscription: > > http://www.listserv.cclrc.ac.uk/archives/absw-l.html > >Even more information on how to manage your subscription: > > http://absw.org.uk/e-list_housekeeping.htm > >Check the experimental blog: > > http://absw.blogspot.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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 5037. 2008-01-08 15:41:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , dave lister date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:41:45 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU_TS_2.1 etc to: Martin Juckes Hi Martin, I've had a look at the data area you identified. Those temperatures are definitely unrealistic, of course. However, the new (yet-to-be-released) version 3.0 of the dataset does not feature such excessions - at least, as far as I can determine. For instance, for the (568, 240) Dec 95 datum: CRU TS 2.10 = 68.6 CRU TS 3.00 = 9.4 For that decade (1991-2000), the range is now -54.6 to 39.2. A much more convincing story, I hope you'll agree. If I had to hazard a guess as to the source of these apparent errors, I would first turn to the source observed dataset. This has been extensively cleaned, QA'd and enhanced since 2002. Cheers Harry On 14 Dec 2007, at 10:44, Martin Juckes wrote: > Hello Ian, > > I've been looking at the data in cru_ts_2_10.1901-2002.tmp, and I > think there > are some unrealistic high temperatures. > > There is a temperature of 68.6 deg. Celsius in Dec. 1995, > grid reference 568, 240. There are 2 other points over 60 deg C in > that month, > also one at 47.2. > > I'm pretty sure that 68 is not a plausible monthly mean, but what > about 47? > Temperatures of this order crop up in several years. > > cheers, > Martin > > On Friday 16 March 2007 10:42, you wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> On 16 Mar 2007, at 9:48, Martin Juckes wrote: >>> Hello Ian, >>> >>> I've just been talking to Phil Jones, who tells me you are now >>> responsible for >>> CRU_TS_1.0 and CRU_TS_2.1. We'd like to use both datasets for the >>> IPCC Data >>> Distribution Centre. The current site uses data which we believe is >>> derived >>> from CRU_TS_1.0, but the documentation trail is patchy -- so we'd >>> like the >>> original data. We'd also like to use the updated data. Phil said >>> this will >>> soon be superceded by a new dataset which will be held here at >>> BADC, but it >>> would be good to have CRU_TS_2.1 in the meantime, >> >> CRU TS 2.10 is now available - please follow the usual data set route >> through the CRU website, let me know if you have problems. >> >> CRU TS 1.0 is temporarily here: >> >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~harry/for_martinjukes/ >> >> Please give me a shout when you've got it! >> >> 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 3980. 2008-01-09 13:19:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 13:19:51 -0500 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: RE: [Fwd: Call for Abstracts EGU CL7: Land-Atmosphere-Ocean to: Phil Jones I'm also thinking of splurgung, though not for the really swanky on the water option... m -----Original Message----- From: "Phil Jones" To: mann@psu.edu Sent: 1/9/08 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: Call for Abstracts EGU CL7: Land-Atmosphere-Ocean linkages throughout the Quaternary] Mike, As I've booked the flights on frequent flyer miles, I'm wondering if I can convince myself (my grant) that I can justify the hotel.... I'll muse on that tonight.. Thanks for advertising the Vienna session. Cheers Phil At 17:41 09/01/2008, you wrote: >Hi Phil, > >OK, I'll do this, hopefully later this >afternoon. I hear you on the 'multitasking'. I >can no longer keep up w/ emails, etc. and get anything done. arggh! > >looking forward to seeing you in Tahiti, we can >enjoy some nice tropical drinks w/ umbrellas in them. > >where are you planning on staying by the way? I >haven't decided yet. The cheap options sound way >to spartan to me, but the nicer options are so expensive! > >talk to you later, > >mike > >Phil Jones wrote: >> >> Mike, >> If you have time to send one out I'd appreciate it. >> Stick my name at the end if you want. I'm getting 2-3 >> emails per day about sessions at EGU. I have so much on >> at the moment - trying to get Wengen finished. This is just >> continually hassling Keith and Tim here! >> Also loads of marking and projects/papers trying to finish. >> I do hope to come to Tahiti - have booked the flights on >> air miles. Having trouble multi-tasking at the moment! >> It seems to be getting harder ! >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>At 16:21 09/01/2008, you wrote: >>>HI Phil, >>> >>>I hope you enjoyed the holidays and new year. >>>I think I'll see you soon in Tahiti, right? >>> >>>Do you mind sending out an email to >>>paleoclimate and CLIMLIST for our EGU session, >>>like the one below? As I mentioned, I won't be >>>able to make it (too much other demands on my >>>time in April), but happy to help w/ the >>>scheduling, etc. But I feel awkward sending >>>out the email announcement knowing that I won't be attending. >>> >>>thanks for any help, >>> >>>mike >>> >>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>Subject: Call for Abstracts EGU CL7: >>>Land-Atmosphere-Ocean linkages throughout the Quaternary >>>Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:49:16 +0100 >>>From: Isabel Cacho >>>Reply-To: icacho@ub.edu >>>To: >>>paleoclimate-list@lists.colorado.edu >>> >>>CC: Peter Kershaw >>>, >>>Jan-Berend Stuut >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Dear Colleagues, >>> >>>We'd like to draw your attention to this EGU session and inviting youto >>>submit your abstracts. >>>EGU 5th General Assembly, Vienna, Austria, 13 - 18 April 2008 >>> >>>*CL7 Land-Atmosphere-Ocean linkages throughout the Quaternary* >>>Interactions between ocean- and atmosphere processes are crucial for the >>>identification of important feedbacks in climate change. Therefore, we >>>need integrated studies of marine and terrestrial proxies and detailed >>>land-sea correlations to establish the sensitivity and phase responseof >>>these different systems. >>>This session seeks to examine marine and terrestrial records on orbital >>>to sub-millennial timescales, but with focus on different records from >>>the same archive. We especially invite papers on sediment cores that >>>establish links between land, atmosphere, and ocean by e.g., focusingon >>>proxy records describing the different players derived from the same >>>sediments. >>> >>>Jan-Berend Stuut >>>Peter Kershaw >>>Isabel Cacho >>>Thorsten Kiefer >>> >>>*Dead line for Abstract Submission: 14 January 1008* >>> >>>*More information: >>> >>>http://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2008/* >>> >>>-- >>> >>>Isabel Cacho >>>GRC Geociències Marines, Dept. Estrat. Paleont. i Geoc. Marines >>>Facultat de Geologia, Universitat de Barcelona >>>C/ Martí Franques s/n >>>08028 Barcelona (Spain) >>>Tel. office: + 34 93 4034641 >>>Tel. lab: + 34 93 4034886 >>>Fax: + 34 93 4021340 >>>e-mail: icacho@ub.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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 589. 2008-01-09 13:44:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jan 9 13:44:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Location of WMO's GCOS stations to: Adrian Simmons , "Stephan Bojinski" , Richard Thigpen Adrian, Stephan, Dick This isn't an important email, so you can ignore till the AOPC meeting. I'm trying to help Ian Strangeways (who Adrian may know) to write a book about temperature measuring - how we calculate global T, errors etc. He's also talking to Chris Folland about SST. I'm trying to stop him going off on pointless tangents. I've sent him chapter and verse on GCOS and most of my papers. First, he wanted to put loads of AWSs around the world to measure T properly - common sensors etc. I muttered something about living in the real world... Now, he's on about the lack of detail in the locations of GSN sites and also those in Volume A. I've also told him this is pointless and what matters is getting the data from these sites. I don't care if they are a little bit inaccurate in their locations and I doubt ECMWF and the other operational centres care either. It seems as though he's found some people who do, expecting to be able to go to google earth and give it detailed locations and find a Stevenson Screen! Have a look through some of the links - the Gladstonefamily website (!!) and that for El Nahud in Sudan. I just wanted to make sure people in the WMO building and CBS are aware that at some point someone will say, we can't the weather stations WMO say are there. Maybe if we did know where they are to a greater accuracy, we could check by Google Earth whether instruments were there !! Maybe they have some resources they can give to GCOS..... Cheers Phil From: "Ian Strangeways" To: Subject: FW: Location of WMO's GCOS stations Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AchR/XO2SRu80DnSSveJbT5+q6GNPQAMdvTw X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Phil You may find this email exchange interesting. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Philip Gladstone [[1]mailto:philip@gladstonefamily.net] Sent: 08 January 2008 13:50 To: Ian Strangeways Subject: Re: Location of WMO's GCOS stations Ian, The deal is that even the data that the WMO has in their Pub 9 Vol A is inaccurate at the minute level. Part of what I am trying to do is to improve that data. You can look at [2]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxdiff.pl to get some idea of the scale of the problem. My master list is at [3]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/location.pl/pjsg_all_location.txt (also available in other formats -- linked from page above). You could filter this by the GCOS sites.... In some cases the location of the observations is marked. In many cases, the location selection process has picked the airport reference point. If you find any better data, then please let me know. The data is good for Australia and for some sites in the US. For the rest of the world it is not so clear. For example, I got this message today: > I work on LIMH. =) > > I'm writing from the meteo station, in this moment. > > It's 05:13/Z. > > Bye > > Max > > Location Source Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude > > New for LIMH 45.93518 7.70724 45° 56' 07" N 7° 42' 26" E > Consensus 45.93000 7.70000 45° 55' 48" N 7° 42' 00" E > > Estimated elevation at new location is 3462 meters, originally 3488 meters > > Page: [4]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/LIMH?showall=1&lat=45.93518&lng=7.70724 > The WMO location was 2.5 miles away from this new location. Is LIMH really the same as 16052? [I've asked the person who sent me the email]. Good luck Philip Ian Strangeways wrote: > Dear Philip > > > > I am writing a book for Cambridge University Press with the title > /Measuring Global temperatures Past, Present and Future/, following on > from my earlier books, also for CUP, with the titles /Measuring the > Natural Environment/ (1^st and 2^nd editions) and a year ago a book with > the title â/Precipitation: Theory, Measurement and Distribution/â. You > may also have seen my series of articles for the Royal Meteorological > Society magazine /Weather/ on /The Met. Enclosure/ (15 articles between > 1995 and 2005). > > > > In writing the present book on temperature, I will be including some > details of the WMO GCOS network of surface stations. However, I have > been unable to find a list giving the station locations to better than 1 > minute lat/long and this does not pinpoint their position well enough to > judge their exposure (rural/urban) and hopefully even to see the > Stevenson Screen. Do you have any suggestions about where I can find > such information? Does CWOP have such a list for example? > > > > Hope you can help > > > > Best wishes > > > > Ian Strangeways > > > > > > /Dr Ian C Strangeways/ > > /7 Cherwell Close/ > > /Thames Street/ > > /Wallingford/ > > /Oxfordshire, OX10 0HF/ > > /United Kingdom/ > > / / > > /Tel 01491 839398/ > > /e-mail: ian.strangeways@ntlworld.com > <[5]mailto:ian.strangeways@ntlworld.com> / > > / [6]www.ianstrangeways.org.uk <[7]http://www.ianstrangeways.org.uk/> / > > Synop Information for 62781 in En Nahud, Sudan The following information is known about 62781. If you think that any information is incorrect, then please follow the instructions for correcting that data item. It is possible that this page will report a problem where no problem exists. If you believe that this has happened, then please contact me (address at the bottom of this page) and explain clearly why you think this page is in error. Note that any changes that you make may take a few days to show up here, so please give it a week before commenting. Location Map: If this message persists, then your browser is not compatible with Google Maps. [] [8]Larger [9]Smaller View in [10]Google Earth. Registered Location Latitude: 12B0 42' 0" N (deg min sec), 12.7000B0 (decimal), 1242.00N (LORAN) Longitude: 28B0 26' 0" E (deg min sec), 28.4333B0 (decimal), 02826.00E (LORAN) Elevation: 564 meters (1850 feet) -- validated against 570 meters (1870 feet) from SRTM.C_20TO43_3 Location: En Nahud, Sudan The site coordinates appear to be of low precision, and the station may be anywhere within the marked area. Clicking within the map area (or you can drag the '62781' marker) will display the latitude/longitude of that point. If the displayed location of the weather observing location is incorrect, please drag the marker to the right location (or click in the right location), and then [11]send the updated information. Please note that we are trying to spot either the Stevenson Screen (or equivalent) or the location where the barometric readings are taken. Email address: Comments, including how you know the location of this weather station. Press Cancel if you do not know where the weather station is located. The latitude and longitude of the marker will be included in the message. Cancel The location information for this site was gathered from 3 data sources. The source which most closely matches the consensus is chosen. Many of these sources only report the location to the nearest minute (or hundredth of degree). This can lead to the marker being placed noticeably incorrectly. Please see [12]Discussion of Location Errors for more information. The position of the clicked point on the map is: The position of the '62781' marker on the map is: Latitude: dummy (deg min sec), dummy (decimal), dummy (LORAN) Longitude: dummy (deg min sec), dummy (decimal), dummy (LORAN) Estimated elevation is dummy meters (dummy feet) from dummy. There are no photographs of the station. If you have pictures of this location, then please upload them to [13]Flickr ([14]detailed instructions) and add the two tags 'wxtagged' and 'wx:wmo=62781'. If the picture is of the weather station itself, then please also add the 'wx:station' tag as well. Please geotag your images, and those coordinates may be used in the estimation of the location of this site. You can try to find photographs from the area surrounding the site marker by clicking on Find nearby photographs. (There are some) (There are none) (There may be some) (Automatically loaded if any) Status: Searching... Status: None found. Clicking on the map above will redo the search centered on the clicked point. Status: 3 found. If any images are of the weather station, then please click on those images, and add the 'wxtagged' and 'wx:wmo=62781' tags to those images. For the station itself, please add the 'wx:station' tag as well. Some users do not permit other users to add tags to their images. In these cases, just add a comment to the picture asking the photographer to add the tags themselves. Clicking on the map above will redo the search centered on the clicked point. You can try to find photographs from the area surrounding the selected point by clicking on Find nearby photographs. Data Status Over the last 28 days, no data was seen on the following dates: 2007-12-21. All the means and standard deviations shown below are from the last 28 days. Change analysis period to [15]Last 3 days [16]Last 7 days [17]Last 14 days [18]Last 8 weeks [19]Last 13 weeks [20]Last 26 weeks [21]Last 39 weeks [22]Last 52 weeks Barometer Latest daily graph: [23]Latest daily graph Temperature Latest daily graph: [24]Latest daily graph Dewpoint -- or switch to [25]Relative Humidity Latest daily graph: [26]Latest daily graph Neighboring Stations This is a list of stations that are close to this station. You can look at those for comparison purposes. The average difference between your station and each station below is listed as well. This may allow you to detect local stations which are erroneous. You can also use these numbers to adjust your instruments -- especially if a number of ASOS stations have similar differences to your station. Also, try increasing the analysis period to more than the default 28 days. The difference is only given if both stations report reasonably often during each day. Some stations only report every 6 hours, and this makes the average of less interest. In this case, the average is not displayed. Since this station has not been reporting continuously during the analysis period (it missed 1 days out of 28), the offsets below may not be accurate. You can also subscribe to an RSS feed to tell you when new stations come online in this area. Choose either within [27]100 miles [28][] or [29]250 miles [30][] . Site Distance Location Barometer Temperature Dewpoint [31]62809 103.3 miles Southwest Babanusa, Sudan (lat 11.3333B0, long 27.8167B0, altitude 453 meters) [32]HSOB 125.3 miles East El Obeid, SD (lat 13.1532B0, long 30.2327B0, altitude 574 meters) [33]HSLI 146.2 miles Southeast Kadugli, SD (lat 11.0000B0, long 29.7167B0, altitude 499 meters) [34]62803 186.0 miles East Rashad, Sudan (lat 11.8667B0, long 31.0500B0, altitude 885 meters) [35]HSFS 218.7 miles West El Fasher, SD (lat 13.6149B0, long 25.3246B0, altitude 729 meters) [36]HSNL 245.1 miles West Nyala, SD (lat 12.0500B0, long 24.8667B0, altitude 643 meters) [37]62750 277.4 miles East Ed Dueim, Sudan (lat 14.0000B0, long 32.3333B0, altitude 378 meters) [38]HSKI 287.2 miles East Kosti/rabak, SD (lat 13.1667B0, long 32.6667B0, altitude 381 meters) [39]HSRN 300.2 miles East Renk, SD (lat 11.7500B0, long 32.7667B0, altitude 282 meters) [40]HSSM 308.1 miles Southeast Malakal, SD (lat 9.5590B0, long 31.6522B0, altitude 388 meters) The sites marked above thus did not report continuously during the analysis period, so the offsets may (probably will) not be accurate. Location Formats The location is shown in three different formats. Each of these is used in some software, and is shown on some websites. Degrees Minutes Seconds: [41]VWS/VWSAPRS, [42]WeatherLink 5.5, [43]WeatherLink (5.2-5.4), WeatherView (Linux) Decimal degrees: FreeWX, [44]WeatherView32 (PC application) LORAN: [45]WeatherDisplay, WUHU, Henriksen WServer Resources [46]CWOP Home: This describes the whole CWOP program and has a large amount of useful information. [47]CWOP Guide (PDF): This is a guide to siting and operating a CWOP station. This is a must-read document. [48]APRS WX Message format: This describes the actual format of the messages transmitted that carry WX information. [49]WXQC Mailing List: This is a mailing list where data quality issues are discussed. Assistance with software configuration can often be found here. [50]Topo Map Reading Guide: How to read USGS topographic maps, with a good section on reading contours. [51]Geographically nearby web pages: Use [52]Geourl to find web pages that deal with locations geographically close to this site. Website comments, problems etc to [53]Philip Gladstone Last modified Sunday, 09 December 2007 This page is one of 32731 similar pages. This one was generated in 0.22 seconds. [54]RE GCOS station locations [55] RE GCOS station locations [56]RE GCOS station locations1 [57] RE GCOS station locations1 [58]RE GCOS station locations2 [59] RE GCOS station locations2 [60]RE GCOS station locations3 [61] RE GCOS station locations3 [62]RE GCOS station locations4 [63] RE GCOS station locations4 [64]RE GCOS station locations5 [65] RE GCOS station locations5 [66]RE GCOS station locations6 [67] RE GCOS station locations6 [68]RE GCOS station locations7 [69] RE GCOS station locations7 > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1355. 2008-01-09 19:52:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:52:15 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Dian J. Seidel'" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Steven Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." Dear folks, I just wanted to update you on my progress in formulating a response to the Douglass et al. paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). There have been several developments. First, I contacted Science to gauge their level of interest in publishing a response to Douglass et al. I thought it was worthwhile to "test the water" before devoting a lot of time to the preparation of a manuscript for submission to Science. I spoke with Jesse Smith, who handles most of the climate-related papers at Science magazine. The bottom line is that, while Science is interested in this issue (particularly since Douglass et al. are casting doubt on the findings of the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper), Jesse Smith thought it was highly unlikely that Science would carry a rebuttal of work published in a different journal (IJC). Regretfully, I agree. Our response to Douglass et al. does not contain any fundamentally new science - although it does contain some new and interesting work (see below). It's an unfortunate situation. Singer is promoting the Douglass et al. paper as a startling "new scientific evidence", which undercuts the key conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP Reports. Christy is using the Douglass et al. paper to argue that his UAH group is uniquely positioned to perform "hard-nosed" and objective evaluation of model performance, and that it's dangerous to leave model evaluation in the hands of biased modelers. Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that either journal will publish such a rebuttal. So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able to give us the desired fast turnaround time. Would GRL accept our contribution, given that the Douglass et al. paper was published in IJC? I think they would - we've done a substantial amount of new work (see below), and can argue, with some justification, that our contribution is more than just a rebuttal of Douglass et al. Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to Phil, this option would probably take too long. I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options. Now to the science (with a lower-case "s"). I'm appending three candidate Figures for a GRL paper. The first Figure was motivated by discussions I've had with Karl Taylor and Tom Wigley. It's an attempt to convey the differences between our method of comparing observed and simulated trends (panel A) and the approach used by Douglass et al. (panel B). In our method, we account for both statistical uncertainties in fitting least-squares linear trends to noisy, temporally-autocorrelated data and for the effects of internally-generated variability. As I've described in previous emails, we compare each of the 49 simulated T2 and T2LT trends (i.e., the same multi-model ensemble used in our 2005 Science paper and in the 2006 CCSP Report) with observed T2 and T2LT trends obtained from the RSS and UAH groups. Our 2-sigma confidence intervals on the model and observed trends are estimated as in Santer et al. (2000). [Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, J.S. Boyle, D.J. Gaffen, J.J. Hnilo, D. Nychka, D.E. Parker, and K.E. Taylor, 2000: Statistical significance of trends and trend differences in layer-average atmospheric temperature time series, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7337-7356] The method that Santer et al. (2000) used to compute "adjusted" trend confidence intervals accounts for the fact that, after fitting a trend to T2 or T2LT data, the regression residuals are typically highly autocorrelated. If this autocorrelation is not accounted for, one could easily reach incorrect decisions on whether the trend in an individual time series is significantly different from zero, or whether two time series have significantly different trends. Santer et al. (2000) accounted for temporal autocorrelation effects by estimating r{1}, the lag-1 autocorrelation of the regression residuals, using r{1} to calculate an effective sample size n{e}, and then using n{e} to determine an adjusted standard error of the least-squares linear trend. Panel A of Figure 1 shows the 2-sigma "adjusted" standard errors for each individual trend. Models with excessively large tropical variability (like FGOALS-g1.0 and GFDL-CM2.1) have large adjusted standard errors. Models with coarse-resolution OGCMs and low-amplitude ENSO variability (like the GISS-AOM) have smaller than observed adjusted standard errors. Neglect of volcanic forcing (i.e., absence of El Chichon and Pinatubo-induced temperature variability) can also contribute to smaller than observed standard errors, as in CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47). The dark and light grey bars in Panel A show (respectively) the 1- and 2-sigma standard errors for the RSS T2LT trend. As is visually obvious, 36 of the 49 model trends are within 1 standard error of the RSS trend, and 47 of the 49 model trends are within 2 standard errors of the RSS trend. I've already explained our "paired trend test" procedure for calculating the statistical significance of the model-versus-observed trend differences. This involves the normalized trend difference d1: d1 = (b{O} - b{M}) / sqrt[ (s{bO})**2 + (s{bM})**2 ] where b{O} and b{M} represent any single pair of Observed and Modeled trends, with adjusted standard errors s{bO} and s{bM}. Under the assumption that d1 is normally distributed, values of d1 > +1.96 or < -1.96 indicate observed-minus-model trend differences that are significant at some stipulated significance level, and one can easily calculate a p-value for each value of d1. These p-values for the 98 pairs of trend tests (49 involving UAH data and 49 involving RSS data) are what we use for determining the total number of "hits", or rejections of the null hypothesis of no significant difference between modeled and observed trends. I note that each test is two-tailed, 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). REJECTION RATES FOR "PAIRED TREND TESTS, OBS-vs-MODEL Stipulated sign. level No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" 5% 49 x 2 (98) 2 (2.04%) 1 (1.02%) 10% 49 x 2 (98) 4 (4.08%) 2 (2.04%) 15% 49 x 2 (98) 7 (7.14%) 5 (5.10%) Now consider Panel B of Figure 1. It helps to clarify the differences between the Douglass et al. comparison of model and observed trends and our own comparison. The black horizontal line ("Multi-model mean trend") is the T2LT trend in the 19-model ensemble, calculated from model ensemble mean trends (the colored symbols). Douglass et al.'s "consistency criterion", sigma{SE}, is given by: sigma{SE} = sigma / sqrt(N - 1) where sigma is the standard deviation of the 19 ensemble-mean trends, and N is 19. The orange and yellow envelopes denote the 1- and 2-sigma{SE} regions. Douglass et al. use sigma{SE} to decide whether the multi-model mean trend is consistent with either of the observed trends. They conclude that the RSS and UAH trends lie outside of the yellow envelope (the 2-sigma{SE} region), and interpret this as evidence of a fundamental inconsistency between modeled and observed trends. As noted previously, Douglass et al. obtain this result because they fail to account for statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the RSS and UAH trends. They ignore the statistical error bars on the RSS and UAH trends (which are shown in Panel A). As is clear from Panel A, the statistical error bars on the RSS and UAH trends overlap with the Douglass et al. 2-sigma{SE} region. Had Douglass et al. accounted for statistical uncertainty in estimation of the observed trends, they would have been unable to conclude that all "UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends". The second Figure plots values of our test statistic (d1) for the "paired trend test". The grey histogram is based on the values of d1 for the 49 tests involving the RSS T2LT trend and the simulated T2LT trends from 20c3m runs. The green histogram is for the 49 paired trend tests involving model 20c3m data and the UAH T2LT trend. Note that the d1 distribution obtained with the UAH data is negatively skewed. This is because the numerator of the d1 test statistic is b{O} - b{M}, and the UAH tropical T2LT trend over 1979-1999 is smaller than most of the model trends (see Figure 1, panel A). The colored dots are values of the d1 test statistic for what I referred to previously as "TYPE2" tests. These tests are limited to the M models with multiple realizations of the 20c3m experiment. Here, M = 11. For each of these M models, I performed paired trend tests for all C unique combinations of trends pairs. For example, for a model with 5 realizations of the 20c3m experiment, like GISS-EH, C = 10. The significance of trend differences is solely a function of "within-model" effects (i.e., is related to the different manifestations of natural internal variability superimposed on the underlying forced response). There are a total of 62 paired trend tests. Note that the separation of the colored symbols on the y-axis is for visual display purposes only, and facilitates the identification of results for individual models. The clear message from Figure 2 is that the values of d1 arising from internal variability alone are typically as large as the d1 values obtained by testing model trends against observational data. The two negative "outlier" values of d1 for the model-versus-observed trend tests involve the large positive trend in CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47). If you have keen eagle eyes, you'll note that the distribution of colored symbols is slightly skewed to the negative side. If you look at Panel A of Figure 1, you'll see that this skewness arises from the relatively small ensemble sizes. Consider results for the 5-member ensemble of 20c3m trends from the MRI-CGCM2.3.2. The trend in realization 1 is close to zero; trends in realizations 2, 3, 4, and 5 are large, positive, and vary between 0.27 to 0.37 degrees C/decade. So d1 is markedly negative for tests involving realization 1 versus realizations 2, 3, 4, and 5. If we showed non-unique combinations of trend pairs (e.g., realization 2 versus realization 1, as well as 1 versus 2), the distribution of colored symbols would be symmetric. But I was concerned that we might be accused of "double counting" if we did this.... The third Figure is the most interesting one. You have not seen this yet. I decided to examine how the Douglass et al. "consistency test" behaves with synthetic data. I did this as a function of sample size N, for N values ranging from 19 (the number of models we used in the CCSP report) to 100. Consider the N = 19 case first. I generated 19 synthetic time series using an AR-1 model of the form: xt(i) = a1 * (xt(i-1) - am) + zt(i) + am where a1 is the coefficient of the AR-1 model, zt(i) is a randomly-generated noise term, and am is a mean (set to zero here). Here, I set a1 to 0.86, close to the lag-1 autocorrelation of the UAH T2LT anomaly data. The other free parameter is a scaling term which controls the amplitude of zt(i). I chose this scaling term to yield a temporal standard deviation of xt(i) that was close to the temporal standard deviation of the monthly-mean UAH T2LT anomaly data. The synthetic time series had the same length as the observational and model data (252 months), and monthly-mean anomalies were calculated in the same way as we did for observations and models. For each of these 19 synthetic time series, I first calculated least-squares linear trends and adjusted standard errors, and then performed the "paired trends". The test involves all 171 unique pairs of trends: b{1} versus b{2}, b{1} versus b{3},... b{1} versus b{19}, b{2} versus b{3}, etc. I then calculate the rejection rates of the null hypothesis of "no significant difference in trend", for stipulated significance levels of 5%, 10%, and 20%. This procedure is repeated 1000 times, with 1000 different realizations of 19 synthetic time series. We can therefore build up a distribution of rejection rates for N = 19, and then do the same for N = 20, etc. The "paired trend" results are plotted as the blue lines in Figure 3. Encouragingly, the percentage rejections of the null hypothesis are close to the theoretical expectations. The 5% significance tests yield a rejection rate of a little over 6%; 10% tests have a rejection rate of over 11%, and 20% tests have a rejection rate of 21%. I'm not quite sure why this slight positive bias arises. This bias does show some small sensitivity (1-2%) to choice of the a1 parameter and the scaling term. Different choices of these parameters can give rejection rates that are closer to the theoretical expectation. But my parameter choices for the AR-1 model were guided by the goal of generating synthetic data with roughly the same autocorrelation and variance properties as the UAH data, and not by a desire to get as close as I possibly could to the theoretical rejection rates. So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined rejection rates? Perhaps Francis can provide us with some guidance here. Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to the skewness of the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions. For example, for the N = 19 case, and for 5% tests, values of rejection rates in the 1000-member distribution range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 24%, with a mean value of 6.7% and a median of 6.4%. Clearly, the minimum value is bounded by zero, but the maximum is not bounded, and in rare cases, rejection rates can be quite large, and influences the mean. This inherent skewness must make some contribution to the small positive bias in rejection rates in the "paired trends" test. What happens if we naively perform the paired trends test WITHOUT adjusting the standard errors of the trends for temporal autocorrelation effects? Results are shown by the black lines in Figure 3. If we ignore temporal autocorrelation, we get the wrong answer. Rejection rates for 5% tests are 60%! We did not publish results from any of these synthetic data experiments in our 2000 JGR paper. In retrospect, this is a bit of a shame, since Figure 3 nicely shows that the adjustment for temporal autocorrelation effects works reasonably well, while failure to adjust yields completely erroneous results. Now consider the red lines in Figure 3. These are the results of applying the Douglass et al. "consistency test" to synthetic data. Again, let's consider the N = 19 case first. I calculate the trends in all 19 synthetic time series. Let's consider the first of these 19 time series as the surrogate observations. The trend in this time series, b{1}, is compared with the mean trend, b{Synth}, computed from the remaining 18 synthetic time series. The Douglass sigma{SE} is also computed from these 18 remaining trends. We then form a test statistic d2 = (b{1} - b{Synth}) / sigma{SE}, and calculate rejection rates for the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the mean trend and the trend in the surrogate observations. This procedure is then repeated with the trend in time series 2 as the surrogate observations, and b{Synth} and sigma{SE} calculated from time series 1, 3, 4,..19. This yields 19 different tests of the null hypothesis. Repeat 1,000 times, and build up a distribution of rejection rates, as in the "paired trends" test. The results are truly alarming. Application of the Douglass et al. "consistency test" to synthetic data - data generated with the same underlying AR-1 model! - leads to rejection of the above-stated null hypothesis at least 65% of the time (for N = 19, 5% significance tests). As expected, rejection rates for the Douglass consistency test rise as N increases. For N = 100, rejection rates for 5% tests are nearly 85%. As my colleague Jim Boyle succinctly put it when he looked at these results, "This is a pretty hard test to pass". I think this nicely illustrates the problems with the statistical approach used by Douglass et al. If you want to demonstrate that modeled and observed temperature trends are fundamentally inconsistent, you devise a fundamentally flawed test is very difficult to pass. I hope to have a first draft of this stuff written up by the end of next week. If Leo is agreeable, Figure 4 of this GRL paper would show the vertical profiles of tropical temperature trends in the various versions of the RAOBCORE data, plus model results. Sorry to bore you with all the gory details. But as we've seen from Douglass et al., details matter. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\santer_fig01.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\santer_fig02.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\santer_fig03.pdf" 3792. 2008-01-10 09:10:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stephan Bojinski , Richard Thigpen , "Tom Peterson" , "Stefanie Lorenz" date: Thu Jan 10 09:10:04 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Location of WMO's GCOS stations to: Adrian Simmons Adrian, Stephan, Dick. Thanks for the responses. I think we can leave it for now and discuss if needed at AOPC. It isn't really an AOPC issue, as it's more for CBS and WMO. I have had another email from Ian. The attached is an example of what can be seen. CEH below is the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Wallingford, Oxon, about 15km from Reading. I can't see the CEH Met site! But if you could look at the actual site close up it would be almost as good as going there and would certainly provide a lot of information about the present conditions at the site and of the surroundings. Some Google Earth images are fuzzy and low in detail, but in many you can see individual cars, houses and trees. You can also tip the view to get a 3D image. I have attached a 3D view of the CEH buildings (bottom) with the CEH Met Site (small field in centre). The buildings don't look as tall as they should, but it's pretty good. The Thames is on the left. Cheers Phil At 23:23 09/01/2008, Adrian Simmons wrote: For the record, we have a very nice display in Google Earth of a day's worth (or perhaps it's 12h-worth)of all the data we assimilate. One can follow the aircraft obs as they track the descent of the aircraft itself into the airport, watch satellites track across the globe, and so on. But we were banned from showing it in public as we were told that the licence agreement was such that Google were given right of access to anything shown in public in Google Earth, and not all our operational datasets can be given away like that. Frustrating. Adrian Phil Jones wrote: Adrian, Stephan, Dick This isn't an important email, so you can ignore till the AOPC meeting. I'm trying to help Ian Strangeways (who Adrian may know) to write a book about temperature measuring - how we calculate global T, errors etc. He's also talking to Chris Folland about SST. I'm trying to stop him going off on pointless tangents. I've sent him chapter and verse on GCOS and most of my papers. First, he wanted to put loads of AWSs around the world to measure T properly - common sensors etc. I muttered something about living in the real world... Now, he's on about the lack of detail in the locations of GSN sites and also those in Volume A. I've also told him this is pointless and what matters is getting the data from these sites. I don't care if they are a little bit inaccurate in their locations and I doubt ECMWF and the other operational centres care either. It seems as though he's found some people who do, expecting to be able to go to google earth and give it detailed locations and find a Stevenson Screen! Have a look through some of the links - the Gladstonefamily website (!!) and that for El Nahud in Sudan. I just wanted to make sure people in the WMO building and CBS are aware that at some point someone will say, we can't the weather stations WMO say are there. Maybe if we did know where they are to a greater accuracy, we could check by Google Earth whether instruments were there !! Maybe they have some resources they can give to GCOS..... Cheers Phil From: "Ian Strangeways" To: Subject: FW: Location of WMO's GCOS stations Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:49:47 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AchR/XO2SRu80DnSSveJbT5+q6GNPQAMdvTw X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Phil You may find this email exchange interesting. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Philip Gladstone [ [1]mailto:philip@gladstonefamily.net] Sent: 08 January 2008 13:50 To: Ian Strangeways Subject: Re: Location of WMO's GCOS stations Ian, The deal is that even the data that the WMO has in their Pub 9 Vol A is inaccurate at the minute level. Part of what I am trying to do is to improve that data. You can look at [2]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxdiff.pl to get some idea of the scale of the problem. My master list is at [3]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/location.pl/pjsg_all_location.txt (also available in other formats -- linked from page above). You could filter this by the GCOS sites.... In some cases the location of the observations is marked. In many cases, the location selection process has picked the airport reference point. If you find any better data, then please let me know. The data is good for Australia and for some sites in the US. For the rest of the world it is not so clear. For example, I got this message today: > I work on LIMH. =) > > I'm writing from the meteo station, in this moment. > > It's 05:13/Z. > > Bye > > Max > > Location Source Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude > > New for LIMH 45.93518 7.70724 45° 56' 07" N 7° 42' 26" E > Consensus 45.93000 7.70000 45° 55' 48" N 7° 42' 00" E > > Estimated elevation at new location is 3462 meters, originally 3488 meters > > Page: [4]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/LIMH?showall=1&lat=45.93518&lng=7.70724 <[5]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/LIMH?showall=1&lat=45.93518&lng=7.70724> > The WMO location was 2.5 miles away from this new location. Is LIMH really the same as 16052? [I've asked the person who sent me the email]. Good luck Philip Ian Strangeways wrote: > Dear Philip > > > > I am writing a book for Cambridge University Press with the title > /Measuring Global temperatures Past, Present and Future/, following on > from my earlier books, also for CUP, with the titles /Measuring the > Natural Environment/ (1^st and 2^nd editions) and a year ago a book with > the title â/Precipitation: Theory, Measurement and Distribution/â. You > may also have seen my series of articles for the Royal Meteorological > Society magazine /Weather/ on /The Met. Enclosure/ (15 articles between > 1995 and 2005). > > > > In writing the present book on temperature, I will be including some > details of the WMO GCOS network of surface stations. However, I have > been unable to find a list giving the station locations to better than 1 > minute lat/long and this does not pinpoint their position well enough to > judge their exposure (rural/urban) and hopefully even to see the > Stevenson Screen. Do you have any suggestions about where I can find > such information? Does CWOP have such a list for example? > > > > Hope you can help > > > > Best wishes > > > > Ian Strangeways > > > > > > /Dr Ian C Strangeways/ > > /7 Cherwell Close/ > > /Thames Street/ > > /Wallingford/ > > /Oxfordshire, OX10 0HF/ > > /United Kingdom/ > > / / > > /Tel 01491 839398/ > > /e-mail: ian.strangeways@ntlworld.com > < [6]mailto:ian.strangeways@ntlworld.com> / > > / [7]www.ianstrangeways.org.uk <[8]http://www.ianstrangeways.org.uk/> < [9]http://www.ianstrangeways.org.uk/> / > > *Synop Information for 62781 in En Nahud, Sudan* The following information is known about 62781. If you think that any information is incorrect, then please follow the instructions for correcting that data item. It is /possible/ that this page will report a problem where no problem exists. If you believe that this has happened, then please contact me (address at the bottom of this page) and explain /clearly/ why you think this page is in error. Note that any changes that you make may take a few days to show up here, so please give it a week before commenting. Location Map: If this message persists, then your browser is not compatible with Google Maps. [] Larger <[10]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;mw=600;mh=600#themap> Smaller <[11]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;mw=200;mh=200#themap> View in Google Earth <[12]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxmarkers.pl?site=62781&kmz=1>. *Registered Location* Latitude: 12B0 42' 0" N (deg min sec), 12.7000B0 (decimal), 1242.00N (LORAN) Longitude: 28B0 26' 0" E (deg min sec), 28.4333B0 (decimal), 02826.00E (LORAN) Elevation: 564 meters (1850 feet) -- validated against 570 meters (1870 feet) from SRTM.C_20TO43_3 Location: En Nahud, Sudan The site coordinates appear to be of low precision, and the station may be anywhere within the marked area. Clicking within the map area (or you can drag the '62781' marker) will display the latitude/longitude of that point. If the displayed location /of the weather observing location/ is incorrect, please drag the marker to the right location (or click in the right location), and then send the updated information <[13]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781#>. Please note that we are trying to spot either the Stevenson Screen (or equivalent) or the location where the barometric readings are taken. Email address: Comments, including how you know the location of this weather station. Press Cancel if you do not know where the weather station is located. The latitude and longitude of the marker will be included in the message. Cancel The location information for this site was gathered from 3 data sources. The source which most closely matches the consensus is chosen. Many of these sources only report the location to the nearest minute (or hundredth of degree). This can lead to the marker being placed noticeably incorrectly. Please see Discussion of Location Errors <[14]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/wxdiff.pl> for more information. The position of the clicked point on the map is: The position of the '62781' marker on the map is: Latitude: dummy (deg min sec), dummy (decimal), dummy (LORAN) Longitude: dummy (deg min sec), dummy (decimal), dummy (LORAN) Estimated elevation is dummy meters (dummy feet) from dummy. There are no photographs of the station. If you have pictures of this location, then /please/ upload them to Flickr <[15]http://www.flickr.com/> ( detailed instructions <[16]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/brookevilleweather/flickr_setup.html>) and add the two tags 'wxtagged' and 'wx:wmo=62781'. If the picture is of the weather station itself, then please also add the 'wx:station' tag as well. Please geotag your images, and those coordinates may be used in the estimation of the location of this site. You can try to find photographs from the area surrounding the site marker by clicking on Find nearby photographs. (There are some) (There are none) (There may be some) (Automatically loaded if any) Status: Searching... Status: None found. Clicking on the map above will redo the search centered on the clicked point. Status: 3 found. If any images are of the weather station, then please click on those images, and add the 'wxtagged' and 'wx:wmo=62781' tags to those images. For the station itself, please add the 'wx:station' tag as well. Some users do not permit other users to add tags to their images. In these cases, just add a comment to the picture asking the photographer to add the tags themselves. Clicking on the map above will redo the search centered on the clicked point. You can try to find photographs from the area surrounding the selected point by clicking on Find nearby photographs. *Data Status* Over the last 28 days, no data was seen on the following dates: 2007-12-21. All the means and standard deviations shown below are from the last 28 days. Change analysis period to Last 3 days <[17]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=3#Data> Last 7 days <[18]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=7#Data> Last 14 days <[19]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=14#Data> Last 8 weeks <[20]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=56#Data> Last 13 weeks <[21]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=91#Data> Last 26 weeks <[22]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=182#Data> Last 39 weeks <[23]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=273#Data> Last 52 weeks <[24]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;days=364#Data> *Barometer* Latest daily graph: Latest daily graph <[25]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/62781> *Temperature* Latest daily graph: Latest daily graph <[26]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/62781> *Dewpoint -- or switch to Relative Humidity <[27]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781?tile=10;humidity=1#dewpoint>* Latest daily graph: Latest daily graph <[28]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/qchart/62781> *Neighboring Stations* This is a list of stations that are close to this station. You can look at those for comparison purposes. The average difference between your station and each station below is listed as well. This may allow you to detect local stations which are erroneous. You can also use these numbers to adjust your instruments -- especially if a number of ASOS stations have similar differences to your station. Also, try increasing the analysis period to more than the default 28 days. The difference is only given if both stations report reasonably often during each day. Some stations only report every 6 hours, and this makes the average of less interest. In this case, the average is not displayed. Since this station has not been reporting continuously during the analysis period (it missed 1 days out of 28), the offsets below may not be accurate. You can also subscribe to an RSS feed to tell you when new stations come online in this area. Choose either within 100 miles <[29]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/newsite.pl?within=100&site=62781> [] <[30]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/newsite.pl?within=100&site=62781> or 250 miles <[31]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/newsite.pl?within=250&site=62781> [] <[32]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/cgi-bin/newsite.pl?within=250&site=62781>. Site Distance Location Barometer Temperature Dewpoint /62809 <[33]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62809>/ /103.3 miles/ /Southwest/ /Babanusa, Sudan (lat 11.3333B0, long 27.8167B0, altitude 453 meters) /HSOB <[34]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSOB> 125.3 miles East El Obeid, SD (lat 13.1532B0, long 30.2327B0, altitude 574 meters) /HSLI <[35]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSLI>/ /146.2 miles/ /Southeast/ /Kadugli, SD (lat 11.0000B0, long 29.7167B0, altitude 499 meters) 62803 <[36]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62803>/ /186.0 miles/ /East/ /Rashad, Sudan (lat 11.8667B0, long 31.0500B0, altitude 885 meters) HSFS <[37]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSFS>/ /218.7 miles/ /West/ /El Fasher, SD (lat 13.6149B0, long 25.3246B0, altitude 729 meters) HSNL <[38]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSNL>/ /245.1 miles/ /West/ /Nyala, SD (lat 12.0500B0, long 24.8667B0, altitude 643 meters) 62750 <[39]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62750>/ /277.4 miles/ /East/ /Ed Dueim, Sudan (lat 14.0000B0, long 32.3333B0, altitude 378 meters) /HSKI <[40]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSKI> 287.2 miles East Kosti/rabak, SD (lat 13.1667B0, long 32.6667B0, altitude 381 meters) /HSRN <[41]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSRN>/ /300.2 miles/ /East/ /Renk, SD (lat 11.7500B0, long 32.7667B0, altitude 282 meters) HSSM <[42]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/HSSM>/ /308.1 miles/ /Southeast/ /Malakal, SD (lat 9.5590B0, long 31.6522B0, altitude 388 meters) /The sites marked above /thus/ did not report continuously during the analysis period, so the offsets may (probably will) not be accurate. *Location Formats* The location is shown in three different formats. Each of these is used in some software, and is shown on some websites. Degrees Minutes Seconds: VWS/VWSAPRS <[43]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/vws_aprs_setup.html>, WeatherLink 5.5 <[44]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/davis_wxlink_5_5_aprs_setup.htm>, WeatherLink (5.2-5.4) <[45]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/davis_wxlink_aprs_setup.htm>, WeatherView (Linux) Decimal degrees: FreeWX, WeatherView32 <[46]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/Procedures_for_CWOP-APRS_Setup_in_WV32.htm> (PC application) LORAN: WeatherDisplay <[47]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/wd_aprs_setup.html>, WUHU, Henriksen WServer *Resources* CWOP Home <[48]http://www.wxqa.com/>: This describes the whole CWOP program and has a large amount of useful information. CWOP Guide (PDF) <[49]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dshelms/CWOP_Guide.pdf>: This is a guide to siting and operating a CWOP station. This is a must-read document. APRS WX Message format <[50]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/aprswxnet.html>: This describes the actual format of the messages transmitted that carry WX information. WXQC Mailing List <[51]http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/mailman/listinfo/wxqc>: This is a mailing list where data quality issues are discussed. Assistance with software configuration can often be found here. Topo Map Reading Guide <[52]http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~dha5446/topoweb/guide.html>: How to read USGS topographic maps, with a good section on reading contours. Geographically nearby web pages <[53]http://geourl.org/near/?p=http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/62781>: Use Geourl <[54]http://geourl.org/> to find web pages that deal with locations geographically close to this site. Website comments, problems etc to Philip Gladstone <[55]mailto:wx-site-62781-4f05i88lg889e845vkla8@nospam.gladstonefamily.net> Last modified Sunday, 09 December 2007 This page is one of 32731 similar pages. This one was generated in 0.22 seconds. RE GCOS station locations <[56]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations> RE GCOS station locations <[57]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations> RE GCOS station locations1 <[58]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations1> RE GCOS station locations1 <[59]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations1> RE GCOS station locations2 <[60]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations2> RE GCOS station locations2 <[61]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations2> RE GCOS station locations3 <[62]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations3> RE GCOS station locations3 <[63]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations3> RE GCOS station locations4 <[64]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations4> RE GCOS station locations4 <[65]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations4> RE GCOS station locations5 <[66]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations5> RE GCOS station locations5 <[67]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations5> RE GCOS station locations6 <[68]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations6> RE GCOS station locations6 <[69]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations6> RE GCOS station locations7 <[70]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations7> RE GCOS station location <[71]file://c:\EUDORA\Embedded\RE%20GCOS%20station%20locations7>s7 > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -------------------------------------------------- Adrian Simmons European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK Phone: +44 118 949 9700 Fax: +44 118 986 9450 -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4669. 2008-01-10 09:38:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 10 09:38:00 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Guardian to: bibi.van.der.zee@guardian.co.uk Bibi, My phone # is 01603 592090. I may not be the right person. I am Director of CRU though. I know about the science of climate change, but don't always follow up on the actions of Universities to be green. Cheers Phil Subject: Guardian Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 15:24:17 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Guardian Thread-Index: AchS07M+JxoDQfntTTOT+odMvXxtGA== From: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" To: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -102.8 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Phil A journalist from the Guardian would like to talk to someone from CRU about a Universities UK report coming out later this month about how green UK universities are (it's a very positive report as you can imagine). The journalist would like more of an objective view from CRU though. She can't let you see the report because it's embargoed but she can talk through it's main points on the phone. Deadline is end of this week or Monday at a stretch. If you feel you can help, please call Bibi Vanderzee on 07747 635750 or email bibi.van.der.zee@guardian.co.uk. If it would be better handled by someone else, just let me know. Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4483. 2008-01-10 11:24:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:24:40 -0000 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: "Tim Osborn" Tim hello from Kathmandu. thanks for the heads up on the rebuttal of the douglas et al paper. I would like to see it in IJoC as this is where the paper was originally published. I think we can promise a quick turn around time and parhaps you could help negotiate some quick reviews on my behalf. I can of course ask for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs. In confidence I must confess that I think I made a misjudgement in letting the offending paper through as Francis Zwiers was not impressed with the paper having reviewed it but left it up to my judgement which on reflection was misplaced. What I am upset about is how one of the authors (springer?) is misrepresenting the findings presented in the paper and using it as a vehicle to peddle some of his rather far fetched views on climate change. hopefully I should have email over the next couple of days. back in the UK late on the 14th. if you could get the ball rolling on this I would be most grateful let me know how you get on with Ben Santer - emphasise that I will do everything in my power to get their paper online asap. I will hold back the print version of the douglas et al paper until I have the santer et al one glenn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:39 AM To: glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk Subject: Fwd: Update on response to Douglass et al. Hi Glenn, I've had some correspondence from Ben Santer regarding the paper by Douglass et al. that I mentioned to you a few weeks ago. He, and a number of others it seems, believe Douglass et al. to be flawed and are formulating a comment/rebuttal. But Ben and his potential co-authors are having some debate over where to submit it... please see the extract from Ben's recent email copied below. My view is that the most appropriate place would be IJC, but they seem to be going against that on the basis of turnaround time, believing that GRL would be significantly faster (theoretically at least, since in practise it will depend upon the favourability of the reviews of course!). But I wondered whether I should attempt to persuade them to go with IJC, being the most appropriate place for a criticism of an IJC paper? To try to persuade them, I would need to indicate what the target turnaround time would be, and also I guess they'd be interested in how long it takes between acceptance and appearance (time to online publication is relatively short these days, isn't it?), and whether specific cases like this can be prioritised? Of course, if you'd prefer to avoid the hassle of dealing with a comment/response then I'll leave them to go with GRL. Anyway, I though you'd want to know about this (of course please treat the fact that a rebuttal is being prepared in confidence), Cheers, Tim >From: Ben Santer > >I just wanted to update you on my progress in formulating a response >to the Douglass et al. paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJC). >... >It's an unfortunate situation. Singer is promoting the Douglass et >al. paper as a startling "new scientific evidence", which undercuts >the key conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP Reports. Christy is using >the Douglass et al. paper to argue that his UAH group is uniquely >positioned to perform "hard-nosed" and objective evaluation of model >performance, and that it's dangerous to leave model evaluation in >the hands of biased modelers. Much as I would like to see a >high-profile rebuttal of Douglass et al. in a journal like Science >or Nature, it's unlikely that either journal will publish such a rebuttal. > >So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think that >it is important to publish an expeditious response to the >statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able >to give us the desired fast turnaround time... > >Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to ..., >this option would probably take too long. 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 3408. 2008-01-10 12:06:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:06:45 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: John Christy's latest ideas] to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, If you get a chance, could you call me up at work (+1 925 423-3364) to talk about the "IJC publication" option? I'd really like to discuss that with you. With best regards, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > Almost said something about this in the main email about the diagrams! > Other emails and a couple of phone calls distracting me - have to make > sure > I'm sending the right email to the right list/person! > He's clearly biased, but he gets an audience unfortunately. There are > enough people out there who think we're wrong to cause me to worry at > times. > I'd like the world to warm up quicker, but if it did, I know that > the sensitivity > is much higher and humanity would be in a real mess! > > I'm getting people misinterpreting my comment that went along with > Chris Folland's press release about the 2008 forecast. It says we're > warming at 0.2 degC/decade and that is exactly what we should be. > The individual years don't matter. > > CA are now to send out FOIA requests for the Review Editor comments > on the AR4 Chapters. For some reason they think they exist! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:52 09/01/2008, you wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> I can't believe John is now arguing that he's the only guy who can >> provide unbiased assessments of model performance. After all the >> mistakes he's made with MSU, and after the Douglass et al. fiasco, he >> should have acquired a little humility. But I guess "humility" isn't >> in his dictionary... >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> Ben, >>> I'll give up on trying to catch him on the road to Damascus - >>> he's beyond redemption. >>> Glad to see that someone's rejected something he's written. >>> Jim Hack's good, so I'm confident he won't be fooled. >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> At 17:28 07/01/2008, you wrote: >>>> Dear Phil, >>>> >>>> More Christy stuff... The guy is just incredible... >>>> >>>> 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; >>>> Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:00:41 -0800 >>>> Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82]) >>>> by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.6 $) with >>>> ESMTP id m07H0edp031523; >>>> Mon, 7 Jan 2008 09:00:40 -0800 >>>> X-Attachments: None >>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5200"; a="5944377" >>>> X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,254,1196668800"; >>>> d="scan'208";a="5944377" >>>> Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29]) >>>> by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2008 09:00:40 -0800 >>>> Message-ID: <47825AB8.5000608@llnl.gov> >>>> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:00:40 -0800 >>>> From: Ben Santer >>>> Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov >>>> Organization: LLNL >>>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529) >>>> MIME-Version: 1.0 >>>> To: "Hack, James J." >>>> Subject: Re: John Christy's latest ideas >>>> References: >>>> <537C6C0940C6C143AA46A88946B854170B9FAF74@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> >>>> In-Reply-To: >>>> <537C6C0940C6C143AA46A88946B854170B9FAF74@ORNLEXCHANGE.ornl.gov> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> >>>> Dear Jim, >>>> >>>> I'm well aware of this paper, and am currently preparing a reply >>>> (together with many others who were involved in the first CCSP >>>> report). To put it bluntly, the Douglass paper is a piece of >>>> worthless garbage. It has serious statistical flaws. Christy should >>>> be ashamed that he's a co-author on this. His letter to Dr. Strayer >>>> is deplorable and offensive. For over a decade, Christy has >>>> portrayed himself as the only guy who is smart enough to develop >>>> climate-quality data records from MSU. Recently, he's also portrayed >>>> himself as the only guy who's smart enough to develop >>>> climate-quality data records from radiosonde data. And now he's the >>>> only scientist who is capable of performing "hard-nosed", >>>> independent assessments of climate model performance. >>>> >>>> John Christy has made a scientific career out of being wrong. He's >>>> not even a third-rate scientist. I'd be happy to discuss Christy's >>>> "unique ways of validating climate models" with you. >>>> >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> Ben >>>> Hack, James J. wrote: >>>>> Dear Ben, >>>>> >>>>> Happy New Year. Hope all is well. I was wondering if you're >>>>> familiar with the attached paper? I thought that you had recently >>>>> published something that concludes something quite different. Is >>>>> that right? If yes, could you forward me a copy? And, any >>>>> comments are also welcome. >>>>> He's coming to ORNL next week to under the premise that he has some >>>>> unique ways to validate climate models (this time with regard to >>>>> the lower thermodynamic structure). I'd be happy to chat with you >>>>> about this as well if you would like. I'm appending what I know to >>>>> the bottom of this note. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards ... >>>>> >>>>> Jim >>>>> >>>>> James J. Hack Director, National Center for Computational Sciences >>>>> Oak Ridge National Laboratory >>>>> One Bethel Valley Road >>>>> P.O. Box 2008, MS-6008 >>>>> Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6008 >>>>> >>>>> email: jhack@ornl.gov >>>>> voice: 865-574-6334 >>>>> fax: 865-241-9578 >>>>> cell: 865-206-9001 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> >> From: John Christy [_mailto:john.christy@nsstc.uah.edu_] >>>>>> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 9:16 AM >>>>>> >> To: Strayer, Michael >>>>>> >> Cc: Salmon, Jeffrey >>>>>> >> Subject: Climate Model Evaluation >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Dr. Strayer: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Jeff Salmon is aware of a project we at UAHuntsville believe is >>>>>> >> vital and that you may provide a way to see it accomplished. >>>>>> As you >>>>>> >> know, our nation's energy and climate change policies are being >>>>>> >> driven by output from global climate models. However, there has >>>>>> >> never been a true "red team" assessment of these model >>>>>> projections >>>>>> >> in the way other government programs are subjected to hard-nosed, >>>>>> >> independent evaluations. To date, most of the "evaluation" of >>>>>> these >>>>>> >> models has been left in the hands of the climate modelers >>>>>> >> themselves. This has the potential of biasing the entire process. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> It is often a climate modeler's claim (and promoted in IPCC >>>>>> >> documents - see attached) that the models must be correct because >>>>>> >> the global surface >>>>>> >> temperature variations since 1850 are reproduced (somewhat) by >>>>>> the >>>>>> >> models when run in hindcast mode. However, this is not a >>>>>> scientific >>>>>> >> experiment for the simple reason that every climate modeler >>>>>> saw the >>>>>> >> answer ahead of time. It is terribly easy to get the right answer >>>>>> >> for the wrong reason, especially if you already know the answer. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> A legitimate experiment is to test the models' output against >>>>>> >> variables to which modelers did not have access ... a true blind >>>>>> >> test of the models. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I have proposed and have had rejected a model evaluation >>>>>> project to >>>>>> >> DOE based on the utilization of global datasets we build here at >>>>>> >> UAH. We have published many of these datasets (most are >>>>>> >> satellite-based) which document the complexity of the climate >>>>>> >> system and which we think models should replicate in some way, >>>>>> and >>>>>> >> to aid in model development where shortcomings are found. >>>>>> These are >>>>>> >> datasets of quantities that modelers in general were not aware of >>>>>> >> when doing model testing. We have performed >>>>>> >> a few of these tests and have found models reveal serious >>>>>> >> shortcomings in some of the most fundamental aspects of energy >>>>>> >> distribution. We believe a rigorous test of climate models is in >>>>>> >> order as the congress starts considering energy reduction >>>>>> >> strategies which can have significant consequences on our >>>>>> economy. >>>>>> >> Below is an abstract of a retooled proposal I am working on. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> If you see a possible avenue for research along these lines, >>>>>> please >>>>>> >> let me know. Too, we have been considering some type of >>>>>> partnership >>>>>> >> with Oakridge since the facility is nearby, and this may be a way >>>>>> >> to do that. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> John C. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Understanding the vertical energy distribution of the Earth's >>>>> atmosphere >>>>>> >> and its expression in global climate model simulations >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> John R. Christy, P.I., University of Alabama in Huntsville >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Abstract >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sets of independent observations indicate, unexpectedly, that the >>>>>> >> warming of the tropical atmosphere since 1978 is proceeding at a >>>>>> >> rate much less than that anticipated from climate model >>>>>> simulations. >>>>>> >> Specifically, while the surface has warmed, the lower troposphere >>>>>> >> has experienced less warming. In contrast, all climate models we >>>>>> >> and others have examined indicate the lower tropical atmosphere >>>>>> >> should be warming at a rate 1.2 to 1.5 times greater than the >>>>>> >> surface when forced with increasing greenhouse gases within the >>>>>> >> context of other observed forcings (the so-called "negative lapse >>>>>> >> rate feedback".) We propose to diagnose this curious phenomenon >>>>>> >> with several satellite-based datasets to document its relation to >>>>>> >> other climate variables. We shall do the same for climate model >>>>>> >> output of the same simulated variables. This will >>>>>> >> enable us to propose an integrated conceptual framework of the >>>>>> >> phenomenon for further testing. Tied in with this research are >>>>> potential >>>>>> >> answers to fundamental questions such as the following: (1) In >>>>>> >> response to increasing surface temperatures, is the lower >>>>>> >> atmosphere reconfiguring the way heat energy is transported which >>>>>> >> allows for an increasing amount of heat to more freely escape to >>>>>> >> space? (2) Could there be a natural thermostatic effect in the >>>>>> >> climate system which acts in a different way than parameterized >>>>>> >> convective-adjustment schemes dependent upon current >>>>>> assumptions of >>>>>> >> heat deposition and retention? (3) >>>>>> >> If observed atmospheric heat retention is considerably less than >>>>>> >> model projections, what impact will lower retention rates have on >>>>>> >> anticipated increases in surface temperatures in the 21st >>>>>> century? >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2005. 2008-01-10 13:56:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" , "Bond Roger Mr \(EST\)" , "Dorling Stephen Dr \(ENV\)" , "Newton Martyn Mr \(MAINT\)" , "Preece Alan Mr \(MAC\)" date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:56:56 -0000 from: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" subject: RE: Guardian to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" Thanks for doing this, Phil. This is good news. I submitted three pieces to UUK for this publication. Two are being included - one on CRU and one on sustainable low-energy buildings. We'll look out for this piece in the Guardian. 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: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:11 PM >To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) >Cc: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Subject: Re: Guardian > > > Simon, > I have had almost an hour's chat with Bibi. CRU and UEA will come > out of this quite well. > She's writing a story for the Education Supplement in the >Guardian, > probably for Tuesday week (so the 22cnd). > The Universities UK book is due out on Jan 26. > > It seems as though they asked all Universities what their highlights > were for all things green - maybe Annie wrote for this - not >just being > green, but also the science as to why, and then cherry picked the > most interesting. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 15:24 09/01/2008, you wrote: >>Hi Phil >> >>A journalist from the Guardian would like to talk to someone from CRU >>about a Universities UK report coming out later this month about how >>green UK universities are (it's a very positive report as you can >>imagine). The journalist would like more of an objective view >from CRU >>though. >> >>She can't let you see the report because it's embargoed but she can >>talk through it's main points on the phone. >> >>Deadline is end of this week or Monday at a stretch. >> >>If you feel you can help, please call Bibi Vanderzee on 07747 >635750 or >>email bibi.van.der.zee@guardian.co.uk. >> >>If it would be better handled by someone else, just let me know. >> >>Cheers, >> >>Simon >> >>Simon Dunford, Press Officer, >>University of East Anglia, >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 >>www.uea.ac.uk/comm > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 4234. 2008-01-10 14:23:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:23:28 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: no cost extension to uea grant to: "Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD" Hi Kevin, On 9 Jan 2008, at 16:09, Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD wrote: > Hi Harry, > Happy New Year, hope you had a good break! Fine, ta - and you? > Just wanted to check on the current status of this work with you (yes, > we've a meeting coming up!). No date fixed though? I don't see anything in my planner.. Current status is that I'm modifying the programs to work with less user involvement (ie standardising filenames and so forth). I'm also modifying the makegrids program to save station count information in the same NetCDF file as the data (it might encourage people to take it seriously then). I think we've decided on a proposal for the procedure. It involves: 1. No decadal files 2. One full-length file that's issued once (maybe twice) a year. 3. One update file that extends the full-length file until it's reissued. 4. The update file is extended every month, with probably a 2-3 month lag. The big issue, (as far as I'm concerned), is that incoming updates may extend back in time, not just in the update file but also into the full-length file. For instance, we might get a complete reissue of all temperature data for a particular country (this happened with Mali a year or two ago). This presents us with a problem. When we next add a month to the update file, it will contain the replaced Mali data. This may well be discontiguous with previous months that were built from the old Mali data. I think the only solution is to treat this kind of incoming data differently to the regular monthly data (BOM, CLIMAT and MCDW). But this poses problems for the 'single database' strategy. > Have you been able to work ok remotely from UEA on our systems? And > when > do you think you'll be able to come down again? I can work remotely on your systems but at the moment I'm adjusting things here. They recompile on your systems without too much trouble. I don't think I should come down again until the system is ready for final handover. So not just yet!!! Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 4064. 2008-01-10 14:43:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:43:30 +0000 from: Peter Thorne subject: Dian, something like this? to: Dian Seidel All, as it happens I am preparing a figure precisely as Dian suggested. This has only been possible due to substantial efforts by Leo in particular, but all the other dataset providers also. I wanted to give a feel for where we are at although I want to tidy this substantially if we were to use it. To do this I've taken every single scrap of info I have in my possession that has a status of at least submitted to a journal. I have considered the common period of 1979-2004. So, assuming you are all sitting comfortably: Grey shading is a little cheat from Santer et al using a trusty ruler. See Figure 3.B in this paper, take the absolute range of model scaling factors at each of the heights on the y-axis and apply this scaling to HadCRUT3 tropical mean trend denoted by the star at the surface. So, if we assume HadCRUT3 is correct then we are aiming for the grey shading or not depending upon one's pre-conceived notion as to whether the models are correct. Red is HadAT2 dataset. black dashed is the raw data used in Titchner et al. submitted (all tropical stations with a 81-2000 climatology) Black whiskers are median, inter-quartile range and max / min from Titchner et al. submission. We know, from complex error-world assessments, that the median under-cooks the required adjustment here and that the truth may conceivably lie (well) outside the upper limit. Bright green is RATPAC Then, and the averaging and trend calculation has been done by Leo here and not me so any final version I'd want to get the raw gridded data and do it exactly the same way. But for the raw raobs data that Leo provided as a sanity check it seems to make a miniscule (<0.05K/decade even at height) difference: Lime green: RICH (RAOBCORE 1.4 breaks, neighbour based adjustment estimates) Solid purple: RAOBCORE 1.2 Dotted purple: RAOBCORE 1.3 Dashed purple: RAOBCORE 1.4 I am also in possession of Steve's submitted IUK dataset and will be adding this trend line shortly. I'll be adding a legend in the large white space bottom left. My take home is that all datasets are heading the right way and that this reduces the probability of a discrepancy. Compare this with Santer et al. Figure 3.B. I'll be using this in an internal report anyway but am quite happy for it to be used in this context too if that is the general feeling. Or for Leo's to be used. Whatever people prefer. Peter -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\trend_profiles_dogs_dinner.png" 2624. 2008-01-10 16:14:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jan 10 16:14:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: An issue/problem with Tim's idea !!!!!!! to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, Tim's idea is a possibility. I've not always got on that well great with Glenn McGregor, but Tim seems to have a reasonable rapport with him. Dian has suggested that this would be the best route - it is the logical one. I also think that Glenn would get quick reviews, as Tim thinks he realises he's made a mistake. Tim has let me into part of secret. Glenn said the paper had two reviews - one positive, the other said it wasn't great, but would leave it up to the editor's discretion. This is why Glenn knows he made the wrong choice. The problem !! The person who said they would leave it to the editor's discretion is on your email list! I don't know who it is - Tim does - maybe they have told you? I don't want to put pressure on Tim. He doesn't know I'm sending this. It isn't me by the way - nor Tim ! Tim said it was someone who hasn't contributed to the discussion - which does narrow the possibilities down! Tim/Glenn discussed getting quick reviews. Whoever this person is they could be the familiar reviewer - and we could then come up with another reasonable name (Kevin - he does everything at the speed of light) as the two reviewers. Colour in IJC costs a bit, but I'm sure we can lean on Glenn. Also we can just have colour in the pdf. I'll now send a few thoughts on the figures! Cheers Phil Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , carl mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Steven Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:00:39 +0000 To: santer1@llnl.gov,"'Philip D. Jones'" From: Tim Osborn Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al. At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: ...Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that either journal will publish such a rebuttal. So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able to give us the desired fast turnaround time... Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to Phil, this option would probably take too long. I'd be interested to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options. Hi Ben and Phil, as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to accompany any comment). I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you've been using - though I don't know which of these people you will be asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available as possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names. Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide. 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4399. 2008-01-11 08:55:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:55:57 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, I spoke to Ben last night. He elaborated a bit on the email below. In the light of this, can you send an email to Glenn to see if he will agree to a few conditions. Could say can we clarify a few things? 1. Can the paper be considered as a new submission and not as a comment on the Douglass et al paper? Ben will likely go for GRL if Glenn won't agree to this. The issue is that he doesn't want Douglass to have the last say. Ben happy for Douglass et al to respond, but he then gets the final say in any reply. 2. There are several reasons for point 1. Ben believes probably rightly that Douglass et al said they didn't want a whole list of people reviewing their paper - those involved in the CCSP Report and also his 2005 Science paper. The Douglass et al paper had done earlier rounds of submission. It was rejected by GRL at least twice - reviewers Ben, Myles and Peter. Ben spent a long time on one of these and pointed out most of the points that will be in his paper! None of these were followed up. 3. Ben knows who the reviewer was who said editor's discretion. They told him - they weren't involved in CCSP nor his Science paper - so I can figure out who it is. There were two iterations for this, and the reviewer wasn't happy with their response, but Glenn accepted it. 4. This person could be a reviewer again - they are fully up to speed. Just need one other - completely not involved. Still think Kevin could be this person. Ben would like to submit fairly soon, so will likely go for GRL if there is no response from Glenn in a week to 10 days. Cheers Phil >X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5100,188,5204"; a="6387429" >X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,267,1196668800"; > d="scan'208";a="6387429" >Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:00:28 -0800 >From: Ben Santer >Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov >Organization: LLNL >User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529) >To: Tim Osborn >CC: "'Philip D. Jones'" >Subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al. >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > >Dear Tim, > >Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional >information that you've given me. I am a bit conflicted about what >we should do. > >IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et >al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues - >work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in >Chapter 5 of the first U.S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge, >none of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper >or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I >am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass >specifically requested that certain scientists should be excluded >from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a >paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work. > >It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to "set >the record straight", and correct the harm they have done by >publication of Douglass et al. I use the word "harm" advisedly. The >author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC paper are using this >paper to argue that "Nature, not CO2, rules the climate", and that >the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the "discernible human >influence" conclusions of previous national and international >scientific assessments. > >Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go >some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, >however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have >the last word on this subject. In my opinion (based on many years of >interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer >are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious >scientific errors. Their "last word" will be an attempt to obfuscate >rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our >scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes >in atmospheric temperature. They are solely interested in advancing >their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al. >ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical >troposphere - data that were in accord with model results - even >though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour >constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving >these guys the last word is inherently unfair. > >If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it's >fair to ask for the following: > >1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not >as a comment on Douglass et al. This seems reasonable given i) The >substantial amount of new work that we have done; and ii) The fact >that the Douglass et al. paper was not regarded as a comment on >Santer et al. (2005), or on Chapter 5 of the 2006 CCSP Report - even >though Douglass et al. clearly WAS a comment on these two publications. > >2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the >opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given >the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published >side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC. > >I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance >on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel >free to forward my email to Glenn McGregor. > >With best regards, > >Ben >Tim Osborn wrote: >>At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >>>...Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass >>>et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that >>>either journal will publish such a rebuttal. >>> >>>So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think >>>that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the >>>statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able >>>to give us the desired fast turnaround time... >>> >>>Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to >>>Phil, this option would probably take too long. I'd be interested >>>to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options. >>Hi Ben and Phil, >>as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board >>of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster >>than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is >>the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass >>et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to >>accompany any comment). >>I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can >>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick >>turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask >>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online >>asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems >>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. >>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I >>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the >>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et >>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could >>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. >>If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I >>could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving >>the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who >>are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be >>someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that >>would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you've >>been using - though I don't know which of these people you will be >>asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available as >>possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need >>to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names. >>Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide. >>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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 455. 2008-01-11 10:38:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , Melissa Free , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:38:40 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: IJoC and Figure 4 to: Peter Thorne Dear folks, Just a quick update. With the assistance of Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Dian, I've now come to a decision about the disposition of our response to Douglass et al. I've decided to submit to IJoC. I think this is a fair and reasonable course of action. The IJoC editor (and various IJoC editorial board members and Royal Meteorological Society members) now recognize that the Douglass et al. paper contains serious statistical flaws, and that its publication in IJoC reflects poorly on the IJoC and Royal Meteorological Society. From my perspective, IJoC should be given the opportunity to set the record straight. The editor of IJoC, Glenn McGregor, has agreed to treat our paper as an independent submission rather than as a comment on Douglass et al. This avoids the situation that I was afraid of - that our paper would be viewed as a comment, and Douglass et al. would have the "last word" in this exchange. In my opinion (based on many years of interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious scientific errors. Their "last word" would have been an attempt to obfuscate rather than illuminate. That would have been very unfortunate. If our contribution is published in IJoC, Douglass et al. will have the opportunity to comment on it, and we will have the right to reply. Ideally, any comment and reply should be published side-by-side in the same issue of IJoC. The other good news is that IJoC is prepared to handle our submission expeditiously. My target, therefore, is to finalize our submission by the end of next week. I hope to have a first draft to send you by no later than next Tuesday. Now on to the "Figure 4" issue. Thanks to many of you for very helpful discussions and advice. Here are some comments: 1) I think it is important to have a Figure 4. We need to provide information on structural uncertainties in radiosonde-based estimates of profiles of atmospheric temperature change. Douglass et al. did not accurately portray the full range of structural uncertainties. 2) I do not want our submission to detract from other publications dealing with recent progress in the development of sonde-based atmospheric temperature datasets. I am aware of at least four such publications which are "in the pipeline". 3) So here is my suggestion for a compromise. o If Leo is agreeable, I would like to show results from his three RAOBCORE versions (v1.2, v1.3, and v1.4) in Figure 4. I'd also like to include results from the RATPAC and HadAT datasets used by Douglass et al. This allows us to illustrate that Douglass et al. were highly selective in their choice of radiosonde data. They had access to results from all three versions of RAOBCORE, but chose to show results from v1.2 only - the version that provided the best support for their "models are inconsistent with observations" argument. o I suggest that we do NOT show the most recent radiosonde results from the Hadley Centre (described in the Titchner et al. paper) or from Steve Sherwood's group. This leaves more scope for a subsequent paper along the lines suggested by Leo, which would synthesize the results from the very latest sonde- and satellite-based temperature datasets, and compare these results with model-based estimates of atmospheric temperature change. I think that someone from the sonde community should take the lead on such a paper. 4) As Melissa has pointed out, Douglass et al. may argue that v1.2 was published at the time they wrote their paper, while v1.3 and v1.4 were unpublished (but submitted). I'm sure this is how Douglass et al. will actually respond. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that Douglass et al. should have at least mentioned the existence of the v1.3 and v1.4 results. Do these suggested courses of action (submission to IJoC and inclusion of a Figure 4 with RAOBCOREv1.2,v1.3,v1.4/RATPAC/HadAT data) sound reasonable to you? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3274. 2008-01-11 10:55:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 11 10:55:18 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Tom to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, First Tim will email Glenn - will let you know when he gets a response. Had a brief chat with Keith/Sarah re Tom. We can discuss this further in Boulder at the end of Jan. The 4 us know that we all owe Tom a lot personally. Organizing a meeting though we'll need some support from somewhere. Thinking about where this might come from depends on who would come. If meeting in the UK, a lot of those who might come would be US, so it might be best in the US. We could talk to Tom Karl and Chris Miller at IDAG. Think about who might come? Who might pay their own way to come? We don't think many would come from within the UK (MOHC, DEFRA), as Tom has upset a few over the years and hasn't been here since 1994. Would Mike Schlesinger come!! Did you go to Steve Schneider's a year or so ago? That is the nearest analogy I can think of. Keith did go to Fritz Schweingruber's a few years ago. He said it went well and wasn't the cringey thing he thought it might be. This even had a proceedings book with papers in. I don't think we should go this far. I can see Mike S's title 'Wigley nicked my model'. ! We think Tom would really want us to do something, but would say no, if we asked him! Keith does a have a small file of reviews Tom never sent and a few choice letters...... for any after dinner speech! We also have a few photos. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4316. 2008-01-11 13:26:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:26:33 -0000 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: "Tim Osborn" Tim thanks for your comprehensive response I have no problem treating the Santer et al contribution as a full paper. I just assumed that they wanted to publish a comment. So if you would like to relay this to BS I would be grateful. Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time etc still stands Yes you are correct about the forecast - tried to do a mountain flight for the 2nd time today but cancelled due to cloud cover over Everest and environs Best Glenn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 11:25 AM To: Glenn McGregor Subject: RE: Update on response to Douglass et al. Hi again Glenn, I emailed Ben Santer to say that his submission would be dealt with as quickly as possible. He thanked you for offering to expedite it. However it turns out that there is a second reason for his reluctance to submit to IJC, which is that if the submission is treated as a comment on Douglass et al., they may get the last word with a response to his comment. He says that this would be unfair because (these are Ben's arguments, not mine): (1) Douglass et al. was essentially a comment on his previously published work (Santer et al., 2005, Science) and yet wasn't treated as such. (2) He has done a substantial amount of new work that will be included, hence it is more than just a comment on Douglass et al. (3) The Douglass et al. paper had done earlier rounds of submission. It was rejected by GRL at least twice - he knows this because Ben and two others reviewed it and it never appeared. Ben spent a long time on one of these reviews and pointed out most of the points that will be in his new submission! None of these were followed up by Douglass et al., so why should they get the last word in a comment/response when they've had previous opportunity to correct errors. (4) Based on his years of experience dealing with Douglass, Christy and Singer, he expects that their last word would attempt to obfuscate rather than to admit any serious scientific errors. Ben will submit it to IJC only as an independent contribution and not as a comment on Douglass et al. This would leave Douglass the opportunity to submit a comment on Ben's paper; if he chose to do so, then Ben would be able to respond with a reply to the comment. However Ben is unsure whether you would want to treat his submission as an independent contribution, since it will clearly be directly critical of Douglass et al. Obviously he would like to know how it would be treated prior to final preparation and submission. Personally I get less worked up than some people do when occasional papers turn out to be in error (if this is the case here)... the scientific record will become clear in time, in my view, and this will be so wherever the Santer piece gets published and whoever has the last word in this particular exchange. Nevertheless, Ben is quite clear that he will submit to IJC only if it is treated as a new contribution... and that's up to you (I appreciate it may be a difficult one to answer without actually seeing his submission!). Regarding reviewers, I could certainly help out by finding some willing and available... Francis Zwiers might be willing to look at it, and I there are various other people quite independent from either Santer or Douglass. Hope Kathmandu is fun (weather forecast looks somewhat cloudy!) 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 2912. 2008-01-11 13:38:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Thorne , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:38:39 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Updated Figures to: Melissa Free Dear folks, Here are the revised Figures 1-3 of our contribution to IJoC. Changes made: Figure 1: In panel A, I've added some space to separate the UAH and RSS trends from the tick marks on the right hand side of the plot, as per Leo's request. Figure 2: As Peter suggested, I've converted the Figure from one to two panels. I agree that this is an improvement. The original Figure was fairly "busy". Furthermore, the colored symbols (which denote results for the "between realization" trend tests) bore no relationship to the "Frequency of occurrence" scale on the y-axis. This is now clear from panel B. Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the interior of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added arrows to indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for 5%, 10%, and 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors and thicknesses of the lines indicating results for the "paired trends". Visually, attention is now drawn to the results we think are most reasonable - the results for the paired trend tests with standard errors adjusted for temporal autocorrelation effects. Please let me know if you would like me to make any other changes. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4235. 2008-01-11 13:41:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:18 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: santer1@llnl.gov Hi Ben (cc Phil), just heard back from Glenn. He's prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also reiterates that "Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time etc still stands". So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide :-) (or feel free to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted]). Cheers Tim At 21:00 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Tim, > >Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional >information that you've given me. I am a bit conflicted about what >we should do. > >IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et >al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues - >work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in >Chapter 5 of the first U.S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge, >none of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper >or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I >am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass >specifically requested that certain scientists should be excluded >from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a >paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work. > >It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to "set >the record straight", and correct the harm they have done by >publication of Douglass et al. I use the word "harm" advisedly. The >author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC paper are using this >paper to argue that "Nature, not CO2, rules the climate", and that >the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the "discernible human >influence" conclusions of previous national and international >scientific assessments. > >Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go >some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, >however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have >the last word on this subject. In my opinion (based on many years of >interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer >are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious >scientific errors. Their "last word" will be an attempt to obfuscate >rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our >scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes >in atmospheric temperature. They are solely interested in advancing >their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al. >ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical >troposphere - data that were in accord with model results - even >though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour >constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving >these guys the last word is inherently unfair. > >If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it's >fair to ask for the following: > >1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not >as a comment on Douglass et al. This seems reasonable given i) The >substantial amount of new work that we have done; and ii) The fact >that the Douglass et al. paper was not regarded as a comment on >Santer et al. (2005), or on Chapter 5 of the 2006 CCSP Report - even >though Douglass et al. clearly WAS a comment on these two publications. > >2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the >opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given >the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published >side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC. > >I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance >on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel >free to forward my email to Glenn McGregor. > >With best regards, > >Ben >Tim Osborn wrote: >>At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >>>...Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass >>>et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that >>>either journal will publish such a rebuttal. >>> >>>So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think >>>that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the >>>statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able >>>to give us the desired fast turnaround time... >>> >>>Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to >>>Phil, this option would probably take too long. I'd be interested >>>to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options. >>Hi Ben and Phil, >>as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board >>of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster >>than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is >>the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass >>et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to >>accompany any comment). >>I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can >>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick >>turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask >>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online >>asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems >>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. >>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I >>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the >>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et >>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could >>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. >>If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I >>could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving >>the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who >>are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be >>someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that >>would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you've >>been using - though I don't know which of these people you will be >>asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available as >>possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need >>to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names. >>Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide. >>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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 5097. 2008-01-11 15:42:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thorne, Peter" , Tim Osborn date: Fri Jan 11 15:42:44 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Update on response to Douglass et al.] to: Peter Stott , santer1@llnl.gov Peter, We're working on this. Tim is in contact with Glenn McGregor who's responding quite quickly despite being in Katmandu. Ben is talking by phone to Tim at the moment! See you in Boulder - I take it you'll still be able to come to IDAGs when you get your new hat! Cheers Phil At 15:36 11/01/2008, Peter Stott wrote: Dear Ben, I'm quite happy to stay out of it. I only got involved because I had had a conversation with Paul Hardaker after the October Royal Met Soc meeting where he was saying he was very keen for the Met Soc journals to attract more submissions and it seemed to me that allowing a paper with so many scientific flaws as the Douglass et al paper wasn't helping his cause. It does though look like Paul and Ian Roulstone would be keen for a response to be submitted to IJOC so maybe the board of IJOC could expedite a speedy response ? Best wishes for 2008 too ! Peter On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 07:20 -0800, Ben Santer wrote: > Dear Peter, > > MSU is like the "beast that will not die" in a bad B-grade horror movie. > As Peter Thorne mentioned, I have been trying to lead an informal effort > to craft a response to Douglass et al. As you'll be able to see from the > forwarded email, we think that Douglass et al. had serious statistical > flaws. My personal opinion is that publication of Douglass et al. > reflects poorly on the IJoC and the Royal Met. Soc. It's unfortunate > that folks like Singer and Christy are now trying to make political hay > out of the IJoC's publication of Douglass et al. I think it would go > some way towards setting the record straight if IJoC were willing to > handle a response to Douglass et al. in an expeditious way. From my > conversations with Phil Jones and Tim Osborn, it looks like IJoC might > be prepared to do this. > > I'm hoping that our little "focus group" will be able to finalize a > response by no later than the end of next week. If you are interested, > I'd be very happy to add your name to our group's email list! > > Best regards, and best wishes for 2008, > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > email message attachment (Update on response to Douglass et al.) > On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 07:20 -0800, Ben Santer wrote: > > Dear folks, > > > > I just wanted to update you on my progress in formulating a response to > > the Douglass et al. paper in the International Journal of Climatology > > (IJC). There have been several developments. > > > > First, I contacted Science to gauge their level of interest in > > publishing a response to Douglass et al. I thought it was worthwhile to > > "test the water" before devoting a lot of time to the preparation of a > > manuscript for submission to Science. I spoke with Jesse Smith, who > > handles most of the climate-related papers at Science magazine. > > > > The bottom line is that, while Science is interested in this issue > > (particularly since Douglass et al. are casting doubt on the findings of > > the 2005 Santer et al. Science paper), Jesse Smith thought it was highly > > unlikely that Science would carry a rebuttal of work published in a > > different journal (IJC). Regretfully, I agree. Our response to Douglass > > et al. does not contain any fundamentally new science - although it does > > contain some new and interesting work (see below). > > > > It's an unfortunate situation. Singer is promoting the Douglass et al. > > paper as a startling "new scientific evidence", which undercuts the key > > conclusions of the IPCC and CCSP Reports. Christy is using the Douglass > > et al. paper to argue that his UAH group is uniquely positioned to > > perform "hard-nosed" and objective evaluation of model performance, and > > that it's dangerous to leave model evaluation in the hands of biased > > modelers. Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of > > Douglass et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that > > either journal will publish such a rebuttal. > > > > So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think that it > > is important to publish an expeditious response to the statistical flaws > > in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able to give us the desired > > fast turnaround time. Would GRL accept our contribution, given that the > > Douglass et al. paper was published in IJC? I think they would - we've > > done a substantial amount of new work (see below), and can argue, with > > some justification, that our contribution is more than just a rebuttal > > of Douglass et al. > > > > Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to Phil, this > > option would probably take too long. I'd be interested to hear any other > > thoughts you might have on publication options. > > > > Now to the science (with a lower-case "s"). I'm appending three > > candidate Figures for a GRL paper. The first Figure was motivated by > > discussions I've had with Karl Taylor and Tom Wigley. It's an attempt to > > convey the differences between our method of comparing observed and > > simulated trends (panel A) and the approach used by Douglass et al. > > (panel B). > > > > In our method, we account for both statistical uncertainties in fitting > > least-squares linear trends to noisy, temporally-autocorrelated data and > > for the effects of internally-generated variability. As I've described > > in previous emails, we compare each of the 49 simulated T2 and T2LT > > trends (i.e., the same multi-model ensemble used in our 2005 Science > > paper and in the 2006 CCSP Report) with observed T2 and T2LT trends > > obtained from the RSS and UAH groups. Our 2-sigma confidence intervals > > on the model and observed trends are estimated as in Santer et al. > > (2000). [Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, J.S. Boyle, D.J. Gaffen, J.J. > > Hnilo, D. Nychka, D.E. Parker, and K.E. Taylor, 2000: Statistical > > significance of trends and trend differences in layer-average > > atmospheric temperature time series, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7337-7356] > > > > The method that Santer et al. (2000) used to compute "adjusted" trend > > confidence intervals accounts for the fact that, after fitting a trend > > to T2 or T2LT data, the regression residuals are typically highly > > autocorrelated. If this autocorrelation is not accounted for, one could > > easily reach incorrect decisions on whether the trend in an individual > > time series is significantly different from zero, or whether two time > > series have significantly different trends. Santer et al. (2000) > > accounted for temporal autocorrelation effects by estimating r{1}, the > > lag-1 autocorrelation of the regression residuals, using r{1} to > > calculate an effective sample size n{e}, and then using n{e} to > > determine an adjusted standard error of the least-squares linear trend. > > Panel A of Figure 1 shows the 2-sigma "adjusted" standard errors for > > each individual trend. Models with excessively large tropical > > variability (like FGOALS-g1.0 and GFDL-CM2.1) have large adjusted > > standard errors. Models with coarse-resolution OGCMs and low-amplitude > > ENSO variability (like the GISS-AOM) have smaller than observed adjusted > > standard errors. Neglect of volcanic forcing (i.e., absence of El > > Chichon and Pinatubo-induced temperature variability) can also > > contribute to smaller than observed standard errors, as in > > CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47). > > > > The dark and light grey bars in Panel A show (respectively) the 1- and > > 2-sigma standard errors for the RSS T2LT trend. As is visually obvious, > > 36 of the 49 model trends are within 1 standard error of the RSS trend, > > and 47 of the 49 model trends are within 2 standard errors of the RSS > > trend. > > > > I've already explained our "paired trend test" procedure for calculating > > the statistical significance of the model-versus-observed trend > > differences. This involves the normalized trend difference d1: > > > > d1 = (b{O} - b{M}) / sqrt[ (s{bO})**2 + (s{bM})**2 ] > > > > where b{O} and b{M} represent any single pair of Observed and Modeled > > trends, with adjusted standard errors s{bO} and s{bM}. > > > > Under the assumption that d1 is normally distributed, values of d1 > > > +1.96 or < -1.96 indicate observed-minus-model trend differences that > > are significant at some stipulated significance level, and one can > > easily calculate a p-value for each value of d1. These p-values for the > > 98 pairs of trend tests (49 involving UAH data and 49 involving RSS > > data) are what we use for determining the total number of "hits", or > > rejections of the null hypothesis of no significant difference between > > modeled and observed trends. I note that each test is two-tailed, 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). > > > > REJECTION RATES FOR "PAIRED TREND TESTS, OBS-vs-MODEL > > Stipulated sign. level No. of tests T2 "Hits" T2LT "Hits" > > 5% 49 x 2 (98) 2 (2.04%) 1 (1.02%) > > 10% 49 x 2 (98) 4 (4.08%) 2 (2.04%) > > 15% 49 x 2 (98) 7 (7.14%) 5 (5.10%) > > > > Now consider Panel B of Figure 1. It helps to clarify the differences > > between the Douglass et al. comparison of model and observed trends and > > our own comparison. The black horizontal line ("Multi-model mean trend") > > is the T2LT trend in the 19-model ensemble, calculated from model > > ensemble mean trends (the colored symbols). Douglass et al.'s > > "consistency criterion", sigma{SE}, is given by: > > > > sigma{SE} = sigma / sqrt(N - 1) > > > > where sigma is the standard deviation of the 19 ensemble-mean trends, > > and N is 19. The orange and yellow envelopes denote the 1- and > > 2-sigma{SE} regions. > > > > Douglass et al. use sigma{SE} to decide whether the multi-model mean > > trend is consistent with either of the observed trends. They conclude > > that the RSS and UAH trends lie outside of the yellow envelope (the > > 2-sigma{SE} region), and interpret this as evidence of a fundamental > > inconsistency between modeled and observed trends. As noted previously, > > Douglass et al. obtain this result because they fail to account for > > statistical uncertainty in the estimation of the RSS and UAH trends. > > They ignore the statistical error bars on the RSS and UAH trends (which > > are shown in Panel A). As is clear from Panel A, the statistical error > > bars on the RSS and UAH trends overlap with the Douglass et al. > > 2-sigma{SE} region. Had Douglass et al. accounted for statistical > > uncertainty in estimation of the observed trends, they would have been > > unable to conclude that all "UAH and RSS satellite trends are > > inconsistent with model trends". > > > > The second Figure plots values of our test statistic (d1) for the > > "paired trend test". The grey histogram is based on the values of d1 for > > the 49 tests involving the RSS T2LT trend and the simulated T2LT trends > > from 20c3m runs. The green histogram is for the 49 paired trend tests > > involving model 20c3m data and the UAH T2LT trend. Note that the d1 > > distribution obtained with the UAH data is negatively skewed. This is > > because the numerator of the d1 test statistic is b{O} - b{M}, and the > > UAH tropical T2LT trend over 1979-1999 is smaller than most of the model > > trends (see Figure 1, panel A). > > > > The colored dots are values of the d1 test statistic for what I referred > > to previously as "TYPE2" tests. These tests are limited to the M models > > with multiple realizations of the 20c3m experiment. Here, M = 11. For > > each of these M models, I performed paired trend tests for all C unique > > combinations of trends pairs. For example, for a model with 5 > > realizations of the 20c3m experiment, like GISS-EH, C = 10. The > > significance of trend differences is solely a function of "within-model" > > effects (i.e., is related to the different manifestations of natural > > internal variability superimposed on the underlying forced response). > > There are a total of 62 paired trend tests. Note that the separation of > > the colored symbols on the y-axis is for visual display purposes only, > > and facilitates the identification of results for individual models. > > > > The clear message from Figure 2 is that the values of d1 arising from > > internal variability alone are typically as large as the d1 values > > obtained by testing model trends against observational data. The two > > negative "outlier" values of d1 for the model-versus-observed trend > > tests involve the large positive trend in CCCma-CGCM3.1(T47). If you > > have keen eagle eyes, you'll note that the distribution of colored > > symbols is slightly skewed to the negative side. If you look at Panel A > > of Figure 1, you'll see that this skewness arises from the relatively > > small ensemble sizes. Consider results for the 5-member ensemble of > > 20c3m trends from the MRI-CGCM2.3.2. The trend in realization 1 is close > > to zero; trends in realizations 2, 3, 4, and 5 are large, positive, and > > vary between 0.27 to 0.37 degrees C/decade. So d1 is markedly negative > > for tests involving realization 1 versus realizations 2, 3, 4, and 5. If > > we showed non-unique combinations of trend pairs (e.g., realization 2 > > versus realization 1, as well as 1 versus 2), the distribution of > > colored symbols would be symmetric. But I was concerned that we might be > > accused of "double counting" if we did this.... > > > > The third Figure is the most interesting one. You have not seen this > > yet. I decided to examine how the Douglass et al. "consistency test" > > behaves with synthetic data. I did this as a function of sample size N, > > for N values ranging from 19 (the number of models we used in the CCSP > > report) to 100. Consider the N = 19 case first. I generated 19 synthetic > > time series using an AR-1 model of the form: > > > > xt(i) = a1 * (xt(i-1) - am) + zt(i) + am > > > > where a1 is the coefficient of the AR-1 model, zt(i) is a > > randomly-generated noise term, and am is a mean (set to zero here). > > Here, I set a1 to 0.86, close to the lag-1 autocorrelation of the UAH > > T2LT anomaly data. The other free parameter is a scaling term which > > controls the amplitude of zt(i). I chose this scaling term to yield a > > temporal standard deviation of xt(i) that was close to the temporal > > standard deviation of the monthly-mean UAH T2LT anomaly data. The > > synthetic time series had the same length as the observational and model > > data (252 months), and monthly-mean anomalies were calculated in the > > same way as we did for observations and models. > > > > For each of these 19 synthetic time series, I first calculated > > least-squares linear trends and adjusted standard errors, and then > > performed the "paired trends". The test involves all 171 unique pairs of > > trends: b{1} versus b{2}, b{1} versus b{3},... b{1} versus b{19}, b{2} > > versus b{3}, etc. I then calculate the rejection rates of the null > > hypothesis of "no significant difference in trend", for stipulated > > significance levels of 5%, 10%, and 20%. This procedure is repeated 1000 > > times, with 1000 different realizations of 19 synthetic time series. We > > can therefore build up a distribution of rejection rates for N = 19, and > > then do the same for N = 20, etc. > > > > The "paired trend" results are plotted as the blue lines in Figure 3. > > Encouragingly, the percentage rejections of the null hypothesis are > > close to the theoretical expectations. The 5% significance tests yield a > > rejection rate of a little over 6%; 10% tests have a rejection rate of > > over 11%, and 20% tests have a rejection rate of 21%. I'm not quite sure > > why this slight positive bias arises. This bias does show some small > > sensitivity (1-2%) to choice of the a1 parameter and the scaling term. > > Different choices of these parameters can give rejection rates that are > > closer to the theoretical expectation. But my parameter choices for the > > AR-1 model were guided by the goal of generating synthetic data with > > roughly the same autocorrelation and variance properties as the UAH > > data, and not by a desire to get as close as I possibly could to the > > theoretical rejection rates. > > > > So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined > > rejection rates? Perhaps Francis can provide us with some guidance here. > > Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to the skewness of > > the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions. For example, > > for the N = 19 case, and for 5% tests, values of rejection rates in the > > 1000-member distribution range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 24%, > > with a mean value of 6.7% and a median of 6.4%. Clearly, the minimum > > value is bounded by zero, but the maximum is not bounded, and in rare > > cases, rejection rates can be quite large, and influences the mean. This > > inherent skewness must make some contribution to the small positive bias > > in rejection rates in the "paired trends" test. > > > > What happens if we naively perform the paired trends test WITHOUT > > adjusting the standard errors of the trends for temporal autocorrelation > > effects? Results are shown by the black lines in Figure 3. If we ignore > > temporal autocorrelation, we get the wrong answer. Rejection rates for > > 5% tests are 60%! > > > > We did not publish results from any of these synthetic data experiments > > in our 2000 JGR paper. In retrospect, this is a bit of a shame, since > > Figure 3 nicely shows that the adjustment for temporal autocorrelation > > effects works reasonably well, while failure to adjust yields completely > > erroneous results. > > > > Now consider the red lines in Figure 3. These are the results of > > applying the Douglass et al. "consistency test" to synthetic data. > > Again, let's consider the N = 19 case first. I calculate the trends in > > all 19 synthetic time series. Let's consider the first of these 19 time > > series as the surrogate observations. The trend in this time series, > > b{1}, is compared with the mean trend, b{Synth}, computed from the > > remaining 18 synthetic time series. The Douglass sigma{SE} is also > > computed from these 18 remaining trends. We then form a test statistic > > d2 = (b{1} - b{Synth}) / sigma{SE}, and calculate rejection rates for > > the null hypothesis of no significant difference between the mean trend > > and the trend in the surrogate observations. This procedure is then > > repeated with the trend in time series 2 as the surrogate observations, > > and b{Synth} and sigma{SE} calculated from time series 1, 3, 4,..19. > > This yields 19 different tests of the null hypothesis. Repeat 1,000 > > times, and build up a distribution of rejection rates, as in the "paired > > trends" test. > > > > The results are truly alarming. Application of the Douglass et al. > > "consistency test" to synthetic data - data generated with the same > > underlying AR-1 model! - leads to rejection of the above-stated null > > hypothesis at least 65% of the time (for N = 19, 5% significance tests). > > As expected, rejection rates for the Douglass consistency test rise as > > N increases. For N = 100, rejection rates for 5% tests are nearly 85%. > > As my colleague Jim Boyle succinctly put it when he looked at these > > results, "This is a pretty hard test to pass". > > > > I think this nicely illustrates the problems with the statistical > > approach used by Douglass et al. If you want to demonstrate that modeled > > and observed temperature trends are fundamentally inconsistent, you > > devise a fundamentally flawed test is very difficult to pass. > > > > I hope to have a first draft of this stuff written up by the end of next > > week. If Leo is agreeable, Figure 4 of this GRL paper would show the > > vertical profiles of tropical temperature trends in the various versions > > of the RAOBCORE data, plus model results. > > > > Sorry to bore you with all the gory details. But as we've seen from > > Douglass et al., details matter. > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Manager Understanding and Attributing Climate Change Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK Mail Address : Hadley Centre (Reading Unit) Meteorology Building, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk NOTE WILL ALSO BE AT EXETER PART OF EACH WEEK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 766. 2008-01-11 16:50:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 11 16:50:50 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Potential reviewers to: santer1@llnl.gov Thanks for this Ben. On the 'phone you also mentioned Kevin Trenberth, but you don't list him below. Is that for a reason? I ask because Phil suggested him and thought he would be do it quickly. Tim At 16:43 11/01/2008, you wrote: Dear Tim, Here are some suggestions for potential reviewers of a Santer et al. IJoC submission on issues related to the consistency between modeled and observed atmospheric temperature trends. None of the suggested reviewers have been involved in the recent "focus group" that has discussed problems with the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. 1. Mike Wallace, University of Washington. U.S. National Academy member. Expert on atmospheric dynamics. Chair of National Academy of Sciences committee on "Reconciling observations of global temperature change" (2000). Email: wallace@atmos.washington.edu 2. Qiang Fu, University of Washington. Expert on atmospheric radiation, dynamics, radiosonde and satellite data. Published 2004 Nature paper and 2005 GRL paper dealing with issues related to global and tropical temperature trends. Email: qfu@atmos.washington.edu 3. Gabi Hegerl, University of Edinburgh. Expert on detection and attribution of externally-forced climate change. Co-Convening Lead Author of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" chapter of IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk 4. Jim Hurrell, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Former Director of Climate and Global Dynamics division at NCAR. Expert on climate modeling, observational data. Published a number of papers on MSU-related issues. Email: jhurrell@cgd.ucar.edu 5. Myles Allen, Oxford University. Expert in Climate Dynamics, detection and attribution, application of statistical methods in climatology. Email: allen@atm.ox.ac.uk 6. Peter Stott, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. Expert in climate modeling, detection and attribution. Email: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1000. 2008-01-11 16:58:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:58:47 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Potential reviewers to: santer1@llnl.gov,Tim Osborn Ben, I briefly discussed this with Tim a few minutes ago. With IDAG coming up, it is probably best not on to use Gabi and Myles. I also suggested that Mike Wallace might be slow - as Myles would have been. Peter S might not be right for the IDAG reason and he does work for the HC - where Peter T does. If Jim is back working he would be good. So would Fu. If Tim can just persuade them to do it - and quickly. I did suggest Kevin - he would do it quickly - but it may be a read rag to a bull with John Christy on the other paper. Glad to see you've gone down his route! Have a good weekend! Ruth says hello! Cheers Phil At 16:43 11/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Tim, > >Here are some suggestions for potential reviewers of a Santer et al. >IJoC submission on issues related to the consistency between modeled >and observed atmospheric temperature trends. None of the suggested >reviewers have been involved in the recent "focus group" that has >discussed problems with the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. > >1. Mike Wallace, University of Washington. U.S. National Academy >member. Expert on atmospheric dynamics. Chair of National Academy of >Sciences committee on "Reconciling observations of global >temperature change" (2000). Email: wallace@atmos.washington.edu > >2. Qiang Fu, University of Washington. Expert on atmospheric >radiation, dynamics, radiosonde and satellite data. Published 2004 >Nature paper and 2005 GRL paper dealing with issues related to >global and tropical temperature trends. Email: qfu@atmos.washington.edu > >3. Gabi Hegerl, University of Edinburgh. Expert on detection and >attribution of externally-forced climate change. Co-Convening Lead >Author of "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" chapter of >IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Email: Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk > >4. Jim Hurrell, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). >Former Director of Climate and Global Dynamics division at NCAR. >Expert on climate modeling, observational data. Published a number >of papers on MSU-related issues. Email: jhurrell@cgd.ucar.edu > >5. Myles Allen, Oxford University. Expert in Climate Dynamics, >detection and attribution, application of statistical methods in >climatology. Email: allen@atm.ox.ac.uk > >6. Peter Stott, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. >Expert in climate modeling, detection and attribution. Email: >peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk > >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2845. 2008-01-11 18:02:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: Melissa Free , Peter Thorne , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , John Lanzante , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , 'Susan Solomon' , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:02:54 -0800 from: Karl Taylor subject: Re: Updated Figures to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear all, The upper panel of figure 2 shows the distribution between differences between simulated and observed trends. The lower panel shows the kind of differences we can expect to get by chance alone (i.e., unforced variability), according to ensembles of simulations by individual models. If we had larger ensembles, we would expect the distribution of these intra-ensemble differences to be more nearly symmetrical about zero. By chance the mean of the results is displaced negatively. As Ben mentioned, if he had included run 1 minus run 2, as well as run 2 minus run 1 (and similarly for other pairs), the expected symmetry would be realized, but he was afraid that this would constitute "double counting". The point of the diagram, however, is to obtain our best estimate of the differences we can expect to get by chance within a model ensemble. I contend that the likelihood of getting a difference of x is equal to the likelihood of getting a difference of -x (within a single model's ensemble), so why not use this information to fill in the pdf in a reasonable way. Thus, I would like to see each difference plotted twice, once with a positive sign and again with a negative sign (and, if you like, we can say we are weighting each point by a half, but of course that doesn't matter here). In this way we will provide a better picture of the true range of differences we would expect to get from each model ensemble. One of the unfortunate problems with the asymmetry of the current figure is that to a casual reader it might suggest a consistency between the intra-ensemble distributions and the model-obs distributions that is not real (and would be unexpected): namely that the differences between trends in runs by individual models also typically are displaced negatively, just like the difference between model and obs. This is, of course, incorrect, and I think we should guard against this misinterpretation. Ben and I have already discussed this point, and I think we're both still a bit unsure on what's the best thing to do here. Perhaps others can provide convincing arguments for keeping the figure as is or making it symmetric as I suggest. There are a few other minor points concerning figure 2 which I'll write down here, so that I don't forget them before I see Ben next on Monday. 1. In panel A, I would plot the histogram for model-obs, not obs-model. I'm used to thinking of errors as being positive when the model value is greater than observed and vice versa. 2. It would appear that if we believe FGOALS or MIROC, then the differences between many of the model runs and obs are not likely to be due to chance alone, but indicate a real discrepancy. If, on the other hand, we believe several of the other models (e.g., MRI or PCM), relatively few of the the model-obs differences are significant. This would seem to indicate that our conclusion depends on which model ensembles we have most confidence in. Am I reasoning this correctly? One complicating factor here is that the normalized differences are ratios, which in the intra-ensemble case roughly measure the amplitude of variability on 20-year time scales (since the true forced trend is the same for both runs) relative to unforced variability on shorter trends (as represented by the standard errors calculated from the de-trended time-series). Thus, a model that has the total variability about right will not yield the correct distribution unless the ratio of the longer-term to shorter-term variability is correct. Similarly, a model that has the incorrect total variance might yield a better normalized trend distribution if the fraction of the total variability exhibited on 20-year time-scales is correct. 3. Instead of '"Between realization" tests', wouldn't it be better to say 'Intra-ensemble tests'? 4. Instead of "Model-vs-model results", wouldn't it be better to say "Realization-vs-realization", not to imply that one model's run is compared to a different model's run. 5. The model labels could be placed as axis labels in place of model number. Best wishes, Karl Ben Santer wrote: > My apologies. I forgot to attach the Figures in my last email. Figures > are appended now. I plead Douglass-induced forgetfulness... > > Best regards, > > Ben > Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Here are the revised Figures 1-3 of our contribution to IJoC. >> >> Changes made: >> >> Figure 1: In panel A, I've added some space to separate the UAH and >> RSS trends from the tick marks on the right hand side of the plot, as >> per Leo's request. >> >> Figure 2: As Peter suggested, I've converted the Figure from one to >> two panels. I agree that this is an improvement. The original Figure >> was fairly "busy". Furthermore, the colored symbols (which denote >> results for the "between realization" trend tests) bore no >> relationship to the "Frequency of occurrence" scale on the y-axis. >> This is now clear from panel B. >> >> Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the interior >> of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added arrows to >> indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for 5%, 10%, and >> 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors and thicknesses >> of the lines indicating results for the "paired trends". Visually, >> attention is now drawn to the results we think are most reasonable - >> the results for the paired trend tests with standard errors adjusted >> for temporal autocorrelation effects. >> >> Please let me know if you would like me to make any other changes. >> >> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > 4149. 2008-01-11 18:11:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:11:02 -0000 from: "Glenn McGregor" subject: RE: Santer et al. manuscript to: "Tim Osborn" Tim thanks - am here for work, a NERC/DfID project on ecosystems services and poverty alleviation will keep an eye out for BS's submission and thanks for recommending reviewers. best glenn -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:33 PM To: Glenn McGregor Subject: Santer et al. manuscript Hi again Glenn (sorry if I'm interrupting holiday time... I forgot to ask if you were there for work or holiday), Ben has decided to submit to IJC -- the right decision I think! -- and would like it treated as a independent submission. He said it would be ready in about a week. With regards potential reviewers... Francis Zwiers seems appropriate, if he's willing. I guess you already have his contact details. Others with appropriate expertise of tropospheric temperatures and/or model-data comparisons would be: Qiang Fu, University of Washington. Expert on atmospheric radiation, dynamics, radiosonde and satellite data. Published 2004 Nature paper and 2005 GRL paper dealing with issues related to global and tropical temperature trends. Email: qfu@atmos.washington.edu or Myles Allen, Oxford University. Expert in Climate Dynamics, detection and attribution, application of statistical methods in climatology. Email: allen@atm.ox.ac.uk Regards 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 579. 2008-01-11 22:29:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:29:53 +0100 from: Juerg Luterbacher subject: Fwd: decision PAGES workshop proposal to: Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov, kahyae@itu.edu.tr, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, elena.xoplaki@giub.unibe.ch, rgarciah@fis.ucm.es Dear all here is the official confirmation of the PAGES support. Ercan, I hope this is enough for the turkish admin. I don't have more anyway. I think we should have a positive feedback from TUBITAK the latest at the beginning of February otherwise I have my doughts. Ercan, from Elena you also got the confirmation of financial support by the ESF, the 24th October. best wishes from Bern Juerg ----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht von Thorsten Kiefer ----- Datum: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:42:58 +0100 Von: Thorsten Kiefer Antwort an: Thorsten Kiefer Betreff: decision PAGES workshop proposal An: juerg@giub.unibe.ch Dear Juerg, Your proposal for a workshop on extreme climate events of the last 1-2 kyr in the greater Mediterranean region was evaluated by PAGES Executive Committee. The EXCOM decided to fund the proposal because it is considered an important element of the network of regional climate reconstructions of the last 2k within PAGES Focus 2 and targets an understudied region. It was agreed to offer you $5,000 initially, with the possibility of additional funds once you provide more detailed information on the participants and on money-spending thereby considering a few suggestions from EXCOM, as outlined below. The $5,000 may be used to fund participants' travel, accommodation and food costs. Part of the money should be spent on supporting the attendance of scientists from the eastern Mediterranean/Middle East region. The EXCOM would be willing to consider an additional contribution towards the requested total of $9,000 based on additional information, to be submitted preferentially before the next EXCOM meeting in May 08: - Provide more detail on the intended spending of PAGES funds. - Explain reasoning for inviting participants from outside the region. - Demonstrate the level of involvement of the region's communities (eastern Mediterranean, Middle East, Northern Africa). For information on Northern Africa, EXCOM suggests that you get in contact with Mohammed Umer, Ethiopia, from the the PAGES SSC. PLEASE NOTE: PAGES is to have final approval of the people selected for support. Please send me the list of names and a short note on each person's expertise, when you have made your selection. Michelle Kaufmann, PAGES Finance Officer (kaufmann@pages.unibe.ch) will contact you with details on how to obtain the money and how to account for its spending. You will be required to sign a contract with PAGES before the funds are transferred. A requirement of PAGES funding is a brief scientific workshop report (600 words max., 1 figure, 1 logo) for the PAGES newsletter issue following the workshop. Also, please include the PAGES logo or a brief text acknowledgement in any pre- or post-workshop publications. The PAGES logo can be downloaded at: http://www.pages-igbp.org/services/logos.html Furthermore, PAGES encourages organizers to see that data related to the workshop are made accessible through submission to a database. Information on how the data can be accessed should be included in the workshop report. The PAGES funding you are receiving is available thanks to the U.S. and Swiss National Science Foundations and NOAA. We look forward to the results of the workshop. Kind regards, Thorsten Kiefer, on behalf of the PAGES Executive Committee On 23 Nov 2007, at 10:02, juerg@giub.unibe.ch wrote: > Title: Extreme Climate Events of the Last 1000-2000 Years in the > Greater Mediterranean Region and Their Impact on Cultural History > > Contact person: > Juerg Luterbacher/Elena Xoplaki > Institute of Geography, Climatology and Meteorology > Hallerstrasse 12 > CH-3012 Bern > Switzerland > > Contact person email: > juerg@giub.unibe.ch > > Country: > Istanbul, Turkey > > Date(s): > End of August 2008 > > Type: > international, research, education, new activity setup > > Number of participants: > We anticipate approximately 40-60 people will attend the workshop. > > Topic: > Extreme Climate Events of the past 1000-2000 years > Impacts on Cultural History in the greater Mediterranean > Paleo droughts and heatwaves > > Timescales covered: > last 1000-2000 years > > Overview: > We propose to bring together anthropologists, historians, and paleo- > climatologists and archaeologists to examine the available data > from well-dated prehistoric/historic cultures and paleo- > environmental records in the Greater Mediterranean Region (GMR), > with a view toward actively involving researchers from the Balkans, > Turkey, Syria, Lebanon and Northern Africa. In particular, we will > consider impacts of large climatic anomalies of the past 1000 to > 2000 years, and promoting more involvement from experts outside the > climate community. The objective will be to identify accurately the > timing of sustained, severe climatic conditions, e.g., prolonged > drought and other extremes, over the past 1000–2000 years. We hope > to convene an interdisciplinary workshop to consider how > documentary and paleo-records can assist in the interpretation of > some important events in the history of the GMR. The workshop will > extend the results of the recent MEDCLIVAR-sponsored workshop on > Reconstruction > of Past Mediterranean Climate by following up on its > recommendations to extend the analysis of climate proxy records > while bringing in aspects related to climate impacts as derived > from historical and archaeological records. > We propose to convene an interdisciplinary workshop of > climatologists, paleo-climatologists, anthropologists, > archaeologists, and historians working in the GMR to address the > following topics in our workshop programme: > > • Explore means to incorporate high-resolution paleo-records to > define periods of persistent drought and floods that could be > independently or by means of teleconnections related to large-scale > modes of variability such as NAO/AMO, PDO/ENSO, etc. for as long as > the proxy records permit this research. > > • Highlight the impact of some of the great historical climatic > episodes (case studies), such as the Great El Niño events in the > 1790s and 1877–78 that led to multi-year monsoon failures in India > with great loss of life. Is there any evidence also from the > southeastern Mediterranean area? > > • Examine some specific historical and cultural shifts in light of > extreme annual, decadal, and multi-decadal climatic regimes— > droughts, pluvials, extended cold or warm periods in the GMR, with > the highest dating accuracy and precision possible. Evaluate the > imprint of these drought events in multiple historical and > paleoclimate proxies. > > • Examine the large multi-decadal to centennial climate shift that > took place in the context of the transition from the Medieval > Climatic Anomaly (~ 900–1300 AD) to the Little Ice Age (~1300–1850 > AD). > > > Relevance to PAGES research areas: > The workshop aims at the understanding of the Greater > Mediterraneans past environment covering the last 1000 to 2000 > years, addressing paleo and current drought conditions and other > extreme events. This is crucial as with increasing human influence > on climate this area will suffor from dry conditions in all seasons > as well as an increase in warmer conditions with socio, economic > and political impacts. It is an international and interdisciplinary > conference where we involve scientists different countries from the > area as well as experts from central Europe and the US working in > the paleo-community. The workshop includes the physical climate > system, ecosystem processes, and human dimensions, covering the > last 1000 to 2000 years, topics that are of relevance for PAGES. > > > Speakers/participants: > Unal Akkemik, Istanbul University-forest sciences, Turkey (contacted) > Caspar Amman (NCAR, Boulder, CO), USA (contacted) > Ray Bradley, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA (contacted) > Henry F. Diaz, NOAA/ESRL, Boulder, USA (confirmed) > Ricardo García Herrera, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain > (confirmed) > Ercan Kahya, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey > (confirmed) > Christian Pfister (University of Bern), Switzerland (contacted) > Lonnie Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA (contacted) > Christos Zerefos, University and Academy of Athens, Greece (contacted) > Dominik Fleitmann, University of Bern, Switzerland (contacted) > plus a few other scientists from the Middle East and northern > Africa to be determined soon. > > > Amount requested: > 9000.- > > Planned use of PAGES funds: > Travel, meals, lodging, more details are not yet availalbe as > details will be discussed among the steering commitee within this > year. We are happy to provide you more information later on > > Other pending or secured funding: > European sciene foundation (Euro 6000.-) (secured) > Turkish government (Euro 10000.-) (pending) > > Planned products: > Expected outcomes or products from this work include: 1) explicit > recommendations for development of methodologies that would promote > the interactive use of paleoclimate and cultural/archaeological > information in interpreting significant cultural changes in the > Greater Mediterranean Region that thought to be associated with > environmental changes; 2) a summary and dissemination of workshop > proceedings; 3) the development of future collaborative research > projects; and possibly 4) a special issue of an interdisciplinary > journal or a book volume containing key contributions from among > the participants. > > Website: > null > > Name of potential PAGES SSC liaison: > Thorsten Kiefer ----- Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht ----- ------------------------------------------------------ This mail was sent through IMP at http://mail.unibe.ch 912. 2008-01-14 09:21:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= date: Mon Jan 14 09:21:18 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Two more quick questions-quick answer to: Dear Qingxiang, Thanks for the quick responses. I will send a revised version later today. With 243 stations needing adjustments, and 728 used, I presume the other 485 were considered to be OK without adjustment. Cheers Phil At 15:15 12/01/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I just give you some quick answers in your email. Best regards Qingxiang Dear Qingxiang, See also the earlier question below. I realise that I didn't send this to your other email address so apologies for that. So there are now 3 questions! 1. Will you need to get approval of CMA for me to submit this to a journal? I could send the paper to Guoyu Ren, for example? \\No. I donot need any approval of CMA for submitting this manuscript.\\ 2. David Lister has redrawn Figure 4 to be like the other time series plots. For Figure 5, though, we are using your excel plot directly. The question is how many station adjustments is the histogram based upon? \\Of all the 731 stations, 243 series were adjusted. and Figure 5 covered all the 243 stations adjustments.\\ 3. In the text I now refer to Li and Li (2007) as the source for the 700+ station average series. Can you tell me exactly how many stations there were? Knowing this will stop reviewers asking for the exact number. \\the exact number is 728, 3 stations series is not used because there are too much missing values in the series.\\ It is possible that the answers to both questions 2 and 3 will be the same number. I think though that the answer to Q2 will be a smaller number than Q3, as there must have been some stations that were not adjusted, so these were not included in the histogram! 4. Finally I have added in the Li and Li reference. I presume this is in Chinese. I think you've told me this. I just want to confirm? \\Yes.\\ I will write an abstract and conclusions this weekend and then send around (and to you as well) for some quick comments from a few colleagues in the UK and the USA. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1350. 2008-01-14 20:08:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" , date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:08:57 -0000 from: "Tim Lenton" subject: RE: UKCIP08 to: "'Phil Jones'" , Phil, Tim, Thanks for the update. I wasn't criticizing UKCIP08, or at least I wasn't thinking of it at all in my comments, and I was probably over-stating my case. I was criticizing what Hadley Centre and others have claimed they can offer in terms of regional predictions. I do have serious doubts about the merits of down-scaling model output in regions where the pattern of change and therefore the boundary conditions for the regional model are not conserved across an ensemble of global model runs. The key question then is, is the UK one of these regions? (From what I have seen, it looks to be.) In such circumstances I think a probabilistic approach has to be the way to go. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 12 December 2007 13:52 To: t.lenton@uea.ac.uk; a.j.watson@uea.ac.uk Cc: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV); t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Subject: UKCIP08 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1835. 2008-01-15 09:13:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 15 09:13:20 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: HADCRUT3 data to: Phil Green Phil, Have you looked at the papers that are on our temperature page? These have some of the details. Most of the issues you rise have been discussed in these or earlier papers. For the 1950s (1951-60) WMO through its 10-year books issued a lot more station data than they had in the 1940s. These continued for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. These only get issued at the end of each decade. It isn't at the end, but often about 5 years afterwards. The 1990s were issued a couple of years ago. We add these data in when they become available. All these sets of 10-year books are put together by NCDC in Asheville, NC for WMO. WMO sends out letters to each National Met Service, but they take years sending in any data for some countries. The drop at the end of 1996 is due almost entirely to fewer US stations. As we already have more stations per area in the US than almost anywhere else (except a few European countries), we haven't bothered updating the US series. I suspect that it is Nov/Dec 1996 because of when we added more US stations. We still have more US stations per unit area than anywhere else - even in 2007. So, this is all a case of data access and not loads of stations stopping at some point (e.g. 1996) or starting (1950). I suspect that the 1951 was more stations starting around the 1945-50 period, but access to a lot of data in the 1940s was poor. This was worse for SST data for obvious reasons. There was a little bit of a decrease is surface station reporting in the 1990s, but this is partly political and partly logistic. First changes in fUSSR reduced stations there, but it is improving a little recently. Even now numbers aren't as bad as some other regions in the tropics, but we did have a good dataset from fUSSR up to the late 1980s. Russia is still better and consistent than lots of other countries (e.g. Brazil). Elsewhere - in developed countries, automation has come. Many countries give these sites new station ids, but they are often at the same locations as the manned sites. It takes us a while to locate these, as WMO don't issue new ids that frequently - what they call volume A. Some countries occasionally issue a lot of back data, which we add, but then don't issue so many sites in real time. We do better keeping track of this for English speaking countries. Most countries have loads more stations than the issue, so the US isn't unique in this. I recently saw a Chinese average based on 700+ sites from 1951. We only get about 60 sites from China each month. 60 is enough though for us. Hope this helps. Phil At 22:41 14/01/2008, you wrote: Dear Dr Jones: I am writing a general interest book on measurement and its difficulties, and one of my chapters deals with measuring global (or hemispheric) temperature means. I recently downloaded the Hadcrut3 database and analysed it in a variety of ways to gain a better understanding. John Kennedy subsequently sent me some data (attached) on the number of stations that were reporting every year and month. I had some questions for him but he suggested you would be a greater authority on this topic. I hope you will feel these questions worthy of a response. I attach a chart of the number of land stations per month. There are several instances where at year-end the number of stations reporting jumps up or down. For example, in 1950-12 there were 2,973 stations; in 1951-1 there are 3,443; a one month jump of almost 500 stations. Likewise in 1996-11 there are 2,708 stations and then 1996-12 there are 1,831 : a drop of almost 900 stations. I have indicated a few more such jumps or drops with arrows. All occur between Dec and Jan, except 1996 which occurs between Nov and Dec. 1. If you could clarify this pattern for me I'd be most grateful. 2. Do I understand correctly that the decreasing number of stations seen from 1990 onwards is a not an indication of the number of physical land stations, but of the problems of collecting the data and entering it into your database? or is there an actual decrease in the number of reporting stations from 1990 onwards? It is this latter point which I am most anxious to clarify, as one would expect the opposite. Gratefully yours, Pihl Green -- Philip Green President Greenbridge Management Inc. 905-271-6262 [1]http://www.greenbridge.com 1850 1 110 1895 1850 2 109 2010 1850 3 110 2238 1850 4 108 2305 1850 5 109 2255 1850 6 109 2389 1850 7 111 2456 1850 8 110 2625 1850 9 110 2116 1850 10 112 1896 1850 11 112 1981 1850 12 112 2029 1851 1 127 1948 1851 2 128 1917 1851 3 128 1733 1851 4 127 1779 1851 5 126 1828 1851 6 127 1815 1851 7 124 1854 1851 8 125 2209 1851 9 122 1716 1851 10 125 1514 1851 11 125 1428 1851 12 127 1540 1852 1 132 1541 1852 2 131 1766 1852 3 133 1829 1852 4 133 2069 1852 5 133 2159 1852 6 131 2279 1852 7 131 2049 1852 8 132 1987 1852 9 132 1800 1852 10 132 2113 1852 11 132 2078 1852 12 133 2101 1853 1 129 2246 1853 2 129 2782 1853 3 130 3086 1853 4 127 2876 1853 5 128 3097 1853 6 129 3157 1853 7 127 3194 1853 8 127 3409 1853 9 126 2685 1853 10 127 2564 1853 11 128 2361 1853 12 130 2570 1854 1 142 2427 1854 2 139 2743 1854 3 140 3199 1854 4 138 2884 1854 5 140 3499 1854 6 140 4017 1854 7 141 4429 1854 8 143 6764 1854 9 143 5589 1854 10 147 5064 1854 11 148 5950 1854 12 145 5770 1855 1 148 6113 1855 2 148 6017 1855 3 152 5084 1855 4 151 6104 1855 5 152 5306 1855 6 153 5530 1855 7 151 6152 1855 8 150 8271 1855 9 149 6765 1855 10 149 5807 1855 11 150 5456 1855 12 149 5801 1856 1 164 5421 1856 2 161 6178 1856 3 161 5808 1856 4 162 5246 1856 5 164 5342 1856 6 165 5908 1856 7 164 5470 1856 8 161 6497 1856 9 161 5162 1856 10 160 4859 1856 11 163 5953 1856 12 161 5674 1857 1 164 5511 1857 2 166 5359 1857 3 166 5107 1857 4 167 5303 1857 5 169 6840 1857 6 168 6432 1857 7 166 6365 1857 8 163 6657 1857 9 166 5318 1857 10 168 5271 1857 11 168 5265 1857 12 170 5918 1858 1 175 6021 1858 2 177 6345 1858 3 177 6124 1858 4 178 5333 1858 5 176 6253 1858 6 175 5598 1858 7 172 5999 1858 8 171 6712 1858 9 169 4830 1858 10 170 3759 1858 11 168 4272 1858 12 170 4159 1859 1 176 4265 1859 2 177 4666 1859 3 178 4519 1859 4 170 3938 1859 5 175 3971 1859 6 173 3574 1859 7 174 4100 1859 8 170 4200 1859 9 173 3157 1859 10 173 2969 1859 11 173 3242 1859 12 174 3846 1860 1 168 4426 1860 2 167 4043 1860 3 166 4122 1860 4 165 3733 1860 5 166 3405 1860 6 165 3541 1860 7 168 4239 1860 8 165 5022 1860 9 170 3953 1860 10 173 3505 1860 11 170 4131 1860 12 172 3840 1861 1 186 4343 1861 2 184 4742 1861 3 183 3220 1861 4 177 3196 1861 5 176 3121 1861 6 171 3379 1861 7 171 3569 1861 8 168 4360 1861 9 172 3436 1861 10 172 4229 1861 11 174 4391 1861 12 174 4842 1862 1 176 4513 1862 2 176 3950 1862 3 173 3985 1862 4 172 3534 1862 5 171 4883 1862 6 171 5419 1862 7 170 5709 1862 8 173 6108 1862 9 173 5222 1862 10 172 4316 1862 11 171 3886 1862 12 174 3695 1863 1 168 4062 1863 2 169 4559 1863 3 169 4162 1863 4 171 3924 1863 5 172 5078 1863 6 174 5041 1863 7 173 5131 1863 8 170 6263 1863 9 169 4682 1863 10 171 5036 1863 11 174 4687 1863 12 175 4375 1864 1 191 4394 1864 2 191 4860 1864 3 190 4430 1864 4 188 4881 1864 5 189 5406 1864 6 190 6310 1864 7 189 6581 1864 8 189 6272 1864 9 192 4322 1864 10 193 5052 1864 11 195 5373 1864 12 194 5676 1865 1 198 5343 1865 2 199 4454 1865 3 194 3444 1865 4 196 3834 1865 5 194 4477 1865 6 195 4176 1865 7 192 3545 1865 8 194 4155 1865 9 195 3448 1865 10 193 3919 1865 11 196 4373 1865 12 198 5379 1866 1 212 5035 1866 2 211 3768 1866 3 213 3374 1866 4 211 3253 1866 5 211 4183 1866 6 210 4404 1866 7 207 4748 1866 8 205 5248 1866 9 215 4348 1866 10 216 4495 1866 11 213 4234 1866 12 215 3439 1867 1 220 2952 1867 2 220 4187 1867 3 217 4898 1867 4 216 4617 1867 5 216 4049 1867 6 219 4356 1867 7 215 3993 1867 8 215 4649 1867 9 221 4178 1867 10 222 4143 1867 11 219 4355 1867 12 219 4584 1868 1 225 3478 1868 2 225 3924 1868 3 229 4720 1868 4 227 4985 1868 5 229 5852 1868 6 228 5424 1868 7 227 5297 1868 8 229 4982 1868 9 231 5025 1868 10 227 5628 1868 11 230 5171 1868 12 231 5128 1869 1 232 4769 1869 2 226 4362 1869 3 229 4779 1869 4 228 5051 1869 5 227 5355 1869 6 230 5327 1869 7 225 5990 1869 8 226 7327 1869 9 225 4879 1869 10 226 4849 1869 11 230 4290 1869 12 230 6206 1870 1 244 6764 1870 2 248 6847 1870 3 249 6233 1870 4 246 6071 1870 5 246 5736 1870 6 243 5894 1870 7 244 6089 1870 8 240 6697 1870 9 247 5280 1870 10 249 5289 1870 11 249 5754 1870 12 252 5964 1871 1 257 4604 1871 2 259 3862 1871 3 268 4200 1871 4 270 5318 1871 5 267 6008 1871 6 267 5933 1871 7 266 5664 1871 8 267 6875 1871 9 267 4832 1871 10 267 4590 1871 11 266 4755 1871 12 267 5009 1872 1 282 4482 1872 2 286 3475 1872 3 281 3620 1872 4 282 5247 1872 5 282 5726 1872 6 282 6242 1872 7 276 5248 1872 8 275 5925 1872 9 279 5270 1872 10 279 5562 1872 11 276 5225 1872 12 277 5710 1873 1 301 4333 1873 2 300 3876 1873 3 300 3980 1873 4 298 4242 1873 5 299 4820 1873 6 300 5110 1873 7 299 5250 1873 8 297 6368 1873 9 299 5303 1873 10 301 4998 1873 11 292 5527 1873 12 283 5843 1874 1 301 5073 1874 2 305 4628 1874 3 307 4545 1874 4 304 5056 1874 5 306 5761 1874 6 302 5453 1874 7 298 6187 1874 8 298 5943 1874 9 302 5471 1874 10 304 6730 1874 11 307 6021 1874 12 308 6598 1875 1 321 5601 1875 2 323 5028 1875 3 325 4788 1875 4 324 5740 1875 5 324 6238 1875 6 328 6543 1875 7 326 6558 1875 8 321 7174 1875 9 325 5288 1875 10 329 4175 1875 11 325 4481 1875 12 330 4610 1876 1 338 5126 1876 2 337 5362 1876 3 339 4545 1876 4 335 4599 1876 5 334 5317 1876 6 327 5437 1876 7 329 5091 1876 8 327 4632 1876 9 332 4120 1876 10 334 5303 1876 11 335 6045 1876 12 332 5810 1877 1 334 4173 1877 2 337 3409 1877 3 336 4010 1877 4 334 4932 1877 5 335 6672 1877 6 334 6139 1877 7 327 5778 1877 8 328 5763 1877 9 333 5055 1877 10 334 5335 1877 11 338 6376 1877 12 335 6278 1878 1 356 5782 1878 2 356 5689 1878 3 358 4365 1878 4 359 5695 1878 5 365 5230 1878 6 360 5812 1878 7 361 6482 1878 8 365 7434 1878 9 365 5085 1878 10 366 4615 1878 11 369 4663 1878 12 365 5081 1879 1 382 5003 1879 2 380 5290 1879 3 378 4611 1879 4 379 5296 1879 5 378 6098 1879 6 376 6657 1879 7 379 6317 1879 8 380 7111 1879 9 379 6216 1879 10 377 6506 1879 11 380 6753 1879 12 368 7009 1880 1 404 6852 1880 2 401 7376 1880 3 402 7371 1880 4 403 6246 1880 5 398 7684 1880 6 399 7372 1880 7 394 7018 1880 8 399 7404 1880 9 397 7423 1880 10 393 7788 1880 11 394 8816 1880 12 397 8697 1881 1 421 7698 1881 2 424 7610 1881 3 424 7565 1881 4 423 7517 1881 5 424 6806 1881 6 420 7533 1881 7 420 6214 1881 8 414 8172 1881 9 415 8222 1881 10 419 7691 1881 11 417 9461 1881 12 413 8288 1882 1 440 8119 1882 2 440 7787 1882 3 441 7992 1882 4 464 8361 1882 5 465 9777 1882 6 467 8972 1882 7 466 8390 1882 8 466 8016 1882 9 468 8082 1882 10 465 8022 1882 11 447 8048 1882 12 446 8820 1883 1 463 8609 1883 2 461 9399 1883 3 462 9479 1883 4 492 7652 1883 5 491 8918 1883 6 496 7136 1883 7 495 8902 1883 8 489 9201 1883 9 493 8066 1883 10 487 8079 1883 11 465 7704 1883 12 464 8252 1884 1 474 7755 1884 2 487 8679 1884 3 485 8569 1884 4 516 9036 1884 5 517 9127 1884 6 520 8039 1884 7 515 7482 1884 8 518 8472 1884 9 517 8142 1884 10 521 9388 1884 11 490 8550 1884 12 490 8633 1885 1 508 7605 1885 2 512 7608 1885 3 518 7499 1885 4 526 8630 1885 5 555 7637 1885 6 543 6521 1885 7 543 7092 1885 8 543 8333 1885 9 552 7387 1885 10 553 8271 1885 11 525 7202 1885 12 529 7711 1886 1 546 8180 1886 2 549 7771 1886 3 550 8090 1886 4 583 7545 1886 5 586 8549 1886 6 589 10350 1886 7 584 10411 1886 8 577 10881 1886 9 581 10976 1886 10 578 11994 1886 11 553 12282 1886 12 552 12487 1887 1 571 11190 1887 2 582 11713 1887 3 579 11175 1887 4 581 12251 1887 5 612 13466 1887 6 618 13725 1887 7 611 15035 1887 8 613 16652 1887 9 619 15826 1887 10 620 16008 1887 11 592 17586 1887 12 592 13549 1888 1 617 13447 1888 2 624 14132 1888 3 623 13986 1888 4 653 14344 1888 5 660 17974 1888 6 651 19142 1888 7 661 18429 1888 8 660 23293 1888 9 653 18564 1888 10 665 17714 1888 11 633 17214 1888 12 639 16434 1889 1 670 15429 1889 2 676 16277 1889 3 672 16191 1889 4 683 16248 1889 5 714 17044 1889 6 714 18153 1889 7 724 15907 1889 8 728 17524 1889 9 735 14814 1889 10 735 15788 1889 11 742 15438 1889 12 718 15406 1890 1 751 14821 1890 2 753 16192 1890 3 755 17175 1890 4 765 15793 1890 5 789 17131 1890 6 792 18162 1890 7 789 16757 1890 8 792 19262 1890 9 796 16226 1890 10 804 16166 1890 11 791 15136 1890 12 769 14598 1891 1 834 13024 1891 2 831 12349 1891 3 825 12594 1891 4 825 13616 1891 5 857 15152 1891 6 858 14032 1891 7 862 14980 1891 8 863 15539 1891 9 868 13095 1891 10 885 10883 1891 11 879 12480 1891 12 867 11851 1892 1 882 12549 1892 2 908 12310 1892 3 909 13197 1892 4 914 12830 1892 5 945 13304 1892 6 941 12157 1892 7 944 13078 1892 8 951 14643 1892 9 942 13384 1892 10 940 13004 1892 11 948 14186 1892 12 931 11562 1893 1 975 12689 1893 2 982 12130 1893 3 990 13615 1893 4 990 16298 1893 5 999 14729 1893 6 1000 14524 1893 7 994 15904 1893 8 1005 17624 1893 9 1000 14575 1893 10 1015 14864 1893 11 1016 15220 1893 12 992 14175 1894 1 1013 12524 1894 2 1020 13873 1894 3 1021 15005 1894 4 1044 15972 1894 5 1069 16186 1894 6 1067 14087 1894 7 1055 13332 1894 8 1066 17542 1894 9 1066 16838 1894 10 1065 14504 1894 11 1062 14243 1894 12 1057 17434 1895 1 1089 17348 1895 2 1095 17141 1895 3 1111 14864 1895 4 1119 14941 1895 5 1128 17567 1895 6 1128 19715 1895 7 1129 18206 1895 8 1141 21357 1895 9 1138 18857 1895 10 1156 19758 1895 11 1140 18070 1895 12 1145 16916 1896 1 1168 15543 1896 2 1180 17684 1896 3 1173 17181 1896 4 1172 17064 1896 5 1184 19241 1896 6 1191 19887 1896 7 1188 18459 1896 8 1199 20726 1896 9 1194 18311 1896 10 1184 18556 1896 11 1161 18562 1896 12 1186 15399 1897 1 1208 14559 1897 2 1212 15700 1897 3 1219 12677 1897 4 1226 16108 1897 5 1240 18295 1897 6 1231 17734 1897 7 1228 17136 1897 8 1232 18249 1897 9 1233 17453 1897 10 1235 16275 1897 11 1225 15842 1897 12 1232 15413 1898 1 1253 15837 1898 2 1258 16780 1898 3 1266 17260 1898 4 1260 16586 1898 5 1269 15843 1898 6 1269 17641 1898 7 1270 19871 1898 8 1261 22885 1898 9 1274 17996 1898 10 1276 18805 1898 11 1263 18482 1898 12 1267 18546 1899 1 1275 17903 1899 2 1284 17276 1899 3 1281 18394 1899 4 1285 17277 1899 5 1296 18002 1899 6 1295 18983 1899 7 1286 16866 1899 8 1291 17648 1899 9 1301 14420 1899 10 1304 16023 1899 11 1295 17780 1899 12 1289 15956 1900 1 1343 12471 1900 2 1346 12931 1900 3 1363 14554 1900 4 1367 14680 1900 5 1372 14708 1900 6 1361 13297 1900 7 1360 12886 1900 8 1359 14930 1900 9 1359 14646 1900 10 1361 14049 1900 11 1351 13455 1900 12 1364 13362 1901 1 1392 13900 1901 2 1405 16634 1901 3 1394 14471 1901 4 1394 13094 1901 5 1404 13749 1901 6 1399 13003 1901 7 1396 14452 1901 8 1398 17641 1901 9 1402 15810 1901 10 1409 15693 1901 11 1401 15964 1901 12 1408 16232 1902 1 1440 14727 1902 2 1434 18816 1902 3 1428 20876 1902 4 1434 22208 1902 5 1446 23549 1902 6 1443 22890 1902 7 1431 21552 1902 8 1446 25334 1902 9 1443 22712 1902 10 1441 24116 1902 11 1424 22855 1902 12 1442 20796 1903 1 1470 20200 1903 2 1472 20881 1903 3 1472 21687 1903 4 1472 22928 1903 5 1479 23837 1903 6 1475 24229 1903 7 1474 22659 1903 8 1472 28750 1903 9 1470 22882 1903 10 1476 24005 1903 11 1479 24663 1903 12 1484 23541 1904 1 1504 23627 1904 2 1512 24756 1904 3 1516 27680 1904 4 1521 28172 1904 5 1534 28883 1904 6 1529 27124 1904 7 1513 28051 1904 8 1505 35229 1904 9 1514 31326 1904 10 1511 31880 1904 11 1514 31055 1904 12 1521 30336 1905 1 1553 29707 1905 2 1557 29227 1905 3 1559 30685 1905 4 1552 32192 1905 5 1560 31485 1905 6 1560 31833 1905 7 1550 32840 1905 8 1548 38595 1905 9 1564 34557 1905 10 1560 34069 1905 11 1566 34704 1905 12 1560 33052 1906 1 1585 32912 1906 2 1592 36645 1906 3 1598 33237 1906 4 1580 32998 1906 5 1592 33866 1906 6 1592 34706 1906 7 1583 35925 1906 8 1581 41768 1906 9 1590 33351 1906 10 1587 33417 1906 11 1587 34395 1906 12 1594 31347 1907 1 1657 29874 1907 2 1656 31736 1907 3 1658 33493 1907 4 1667 33516 1907 5 1660 34581 1907 6 1666 34007 1907 7 1661 38451 1907 8 1660 46384 1907 9 1670 38173 1907 10 1667 36272 1907 11 1675 39276 1907 12 1680 37333 1908 1 1697 35250 1908 2 1705 39193 1908 3 1688 39226 1908 4 1689 38996 1908 5 1697 37553 1908 6 1695 37015 1908 7 1696 40706 1908 8 1706 49406 1908 9 1706 41348 1908 10 1700 40682 1908 11 1710 40414 1908 12 1709 39096 1909 1 1748 37631 1909 2 1756 41300 1909 3 1749 41212 1909 4 1745 42292 1909 5 1736 43212 1909 6 1746 43374 1909 7 1740 46622 1909 8 1745 54575 1909 9 1746 47017 1909 10 1744 47417 1909 11 1752 48628 1909 12 1753 47612 1910 1 1788 47644 1910 2 1787 46844 1910 3 1793 48630 1910 4 1796 49503 1910 5 1789 52616 1910 6 1790 52234 1910 7 1781 54417 1910 8 1794 62702 1910 9 1789 56000 1910 10 1788 57377 1910 11 1777 54563 1910 12 1791 55234 1911 1 1820 55768 1911 2 1830 53355 1911 3 1819 55890 1911 4 1824 54025 1911 5 1823 57810 1911 6 1826 54737 1911 7 1828 57341 1911 8 1826 68342 1911 9 1832 54584 1911 10 1843 56562 1911 11 1833 56786 1911 12 1843 54854 1912 1 1862 52208 1912 2 1870 52546 1912 3 1868 51982 1912 4 1868 54835 1912 5 1863 54769 1912 6 1869 53957 1912 7 1866 57524 1912 8 1870 64488 1912 9 1863 56839 1912 10 1871 57017 1912 11 1881 56610 1912 12 1884 58321 1913 1 1905 67672 1913 2 1906 69820 1913 3 1914 71478 1913 4 1920 67577 1913 5 1911 66959 1913 6 1921 67895 1913 7 1899 69480 1913 8 1909 79888 1913 9 1908 67550 1913 10 1910 66264 1913 11 1917 67492 1913 12 1923 65864 1914 1 1967 62346 1914 2 1955 64480 1914 3 1948 61978 1914 4 1945 56283 1914 5 1955 52789 1914 6 1960 47479 1914 7 1950 36715 1914 8 1961 24746 1914 9 1966 17661 1914 10 1972 19641 1914 11 1971 21382 1914 12 1966 20156 1915 1 1968 21045 1915 2 1972 22900 1915 3 1969 24118 1915 4 1966 23425 1915 5 1960 23864 1915 6 1965 24569 1915 7 1967 22414 1915 8 1964 26990 1915 9 1973 23725 1915 10 1975 23501 1915 11 1978 23833 1915 12 1975 23158 1916 1 1988 22238 1916 2 1992 23786 1916 3 1985 22956 1916 4 1985 21098 1916 5 1980 21599 1916 6 1986 21835 1916 7 1993 20411 1916 8 1984 25898 1916 9 1992 21309 1916 10 1999 21075 1916 11 1980 21426 1916 12 1989 20607 1917 1 2010 18841 1917 2 2003 17297 1917 3 2002 17588 1917 4 2010 17369 1917 5 2003 17875 1917 6 2006 17923 1917 7 2010 18037 1917 8 2008 19654 1917 9 2010 16727 1917 10 1997 16211 1917 11 1990 15774 1917 12 2000 14595 1918 1 2007 13785 1918 2 2013 13355 1918 3 2011 12763 1918 4 2020 10487 1918 5 2021 11282 1918 6 2010 12143 1918 7 2006 12436 1918 8 2015 15261 1918 9 2008 11796 1918 10 2003 12159 1918 11 1985 11588 1918 12 1993 10961 1919 1 2002 11972 1919 2 2014 12642 1919 3 2010 14250 1919 4 2013 13302 1919 5 2015 15645 1919 6 2020 17283 1919 7 2011 16111 1919 8 2010 16135 1919 9 2001 14870 1919 10 1975 18732 1919 11 1983 19738 1919 12 2002 17756 1920 1 2000 15914 1920 2 2013 18090 1920 3 2010 14784 1920 4 2007 16036 1920 5 2005 17323 1920 6 2014 18143 1920 7 2002 21347 1920 8 2010 26829 1920 9 2002 22764 1920 10 1994 24056 1920 11 1989 24183 1920 12 2016 25945 1921 1 2052 24277 1921 2 2066 26450 1921 3 2059 26821 1921 4 2056 30007 1921 5 2063 31189 1921 6 2063 29479 1921 7 2063 31124 1921 8 2064 38134 1921 9 2065 33945 1921 10 2069 32406 1921 11 2057 34400 1921 12 2062 32406 1922 1 2073 29168 1922 2 2074 32994 1922 3 2079 35577 1922 4 2087 36988 1922 5 2077 37013 1922 6 2075 38495 1922 7 2075 38286 1922 8 2089 45046 1922 9 2090 39024 1922 10 2089 39034 1922 11 2092 42238 1922 12 2088 41181 1923 1 2110 39639 1923 2 2097 44201 1923 3 2105 44290 1923 4 2105 44425 1923 5 2116 44364 1923 6 2122 45525 1923 7 2118 46707 1923 8 2122 51109 1923 9 2125 44642 1923 10 2134 44929 1923 11 2129 45135 1923 12 2124 43684 1924 1 2134 44271 1924 2 2139 48545 1924 3 2134 48575 1924 4 2136 48842 1924 5 2128 48896 1924 6 2135 48698 1924 7 2134 46589 1924 8 2134 54246 1924 9 2138 47970 1924 10 2144 49141 1924 11 2133 49051 1924 12 2132 45129 1925 1 2156 45606 1925 2 2172 46917 1925 3 2170 45552 1925 4 2162 45038 1925 5 2169 45580 1925 6 2170 44068 1925 7 2163 43835 1925 8 2172 53039 1925 9 2167 45025 1925 10 2176 48063 1925 11 2169 47146 1925 12 2163 44440 1926 1 2198 41963 1926 2 2190 47833 1926 3 2194 46015 1926 4 2199 45060 1926 5 2202 44515 1926 6 2208 45764 1926 7 2211 47829 1926 8 2211 57593 1926 9 2219 49392 1926 10 2205 51956 1926 11 2204 52095 1926 12 2211 49493 1927 1 2228 49103 1927 2 2227 53022 1927 3 2229 54117 1927 4 2221 54306 1927 5 2222 55076 1927 6 2218 52813 1927 7 2224 55858 1927 8 2209 64351 1927 9 2230 53877 1927 10 2225 54194 1927 11 2225 55598 1927 12 2229 51885 1928 1 2251 49054 1928 2 2244 52608 1928 3 2230 51709 1928 4 2244 51080 1928 5 2248 52557 1928 6 2241 51775 1928 7 2247 52559 1928 8 2251 63574 1928 9 2239 53749 1928 10 2240 52527 1928 11 2245 54384 1928 12 2242 51838 1929 1 2262 47802 1929 2 2265 50031 1929 3 2275 50678 1929 4 2278 51768 1929 5 2270 51809 1929 6 2271 52420 1929 7 2270 56018 1929 8 2266 63530 1929 9 2279 53019 1929 10 2273 54189 1929 11 2270 52712 1929 12 2271 48910 1930 1 2276 46282 1930 2 2287 49226 1930 3 2291 47187 1930 4 2296 49936 1930 5 2293 48641 1930 6 2300 47961 1930 7 2298 46593 1930 8 2298 53748 1930 9 2286 47391 1930 10 2299 46859 1930 11 2283 44842 1930 12 2294 42708 1931 1 2352 39678 1931 2 2344 41885 1931 3 2353 41931 1931 4 2351 41320 1931 5 2354 42941 1931 6 2361 42437 1931 7 2363 41474 1931 8 2358 47082 1931 9 2355 37944 1931 10 2353 37388 1931 11 2351 36683 1931 12 2350 33083 1932 1 2366 30362 1932 2 2365 32447 1932 3 2363 32316 1932 4 2357 30677 1932 5 2365 31340 1932 6 2376 29604 1932 7 2362 29811 1932 8 2378 32757 1932 9 2383 30040 1932 10 2379 29117 1932 11 2377 30062 1932 12 2377 29504 1933 1 2389 40658 1933 2 2391 42751 1933 3 2396 43762 1933 4 2394 45871 1933 5 2401 42591 1933 6 2407 43656 1933 7 2399 45091 1933 8 2397 52950 1933 9 2393 47461 1933 10 2401 47918 1933 11 2391 49553 1933 12 2383 43903 1934 1 2404 47016 1934 2 2400 48267 1934 3 2397 50046 1934 4 2401 47600 1934 5 2403 48745 1934 6 2404 49112 1934 7 2396 50119 1934 8 2400 57685 1934 9 2401 51358 1934 10 2401 49885 1934 11 2409 49083 1934 12 2398 47244 1935 1 2406 47352 1935 2 2407 50066 1935 3 2404 53043 1935 4 2399 51040 1935 5 2404 51958 1935 6 2399 53292 1935 7 2409 56620 1935 8 2419 69161 1935 9 2417 62316 1935 10 2411 63398 1935 11 2402 62526 1935 12 2404 59317 1936 1 2457 60448 1936 2 2428 63749 1936 3 2462 63971 1936 4 2459 62759 1936 5 2458 66628 1936 6 2460 64996 1936 7 2453 67259 1936 8 2457 78043 1936 9 2472 66318 1936 10 2466 66098 1936 11 2458 63768 1936 12 2460 59094 1937 1 2463 62249 1937 2 2476 66325 1937 3 2472 67010 1937 4 2478 66078 1937 5 2484 68150 1937 6 2487 69060 1937 7 2492 69212 1937 8 2490 77139 1937 9 2485 64488 1937 10 2486 62857 1937 11 2465 62009 1937 12 2465 58657 1938 1 2502 58085 1938 2 2500 60942 1938 3 2507 61706 1938 4 2520 62277 1938 5 2521 61085 1938 6 2520 61676 1938 7 2514 62374 1938 8 2520 68586 1938 9 2522 56121 1938 10 2510 54870 1938 11 2512 51910 1938 12 2511 50689 1939 1 2545 52558 1939 2 2548 52030 1939 3 2550 50174 1939 4 2558 50165 1939 5 2562 48562 1939 6 2553 49842 1939 7 2562 47713 1939 8 2563 48737 1939 9 2563 29972 1939 10 2562 29318 1939 11 2560 27818 1939 12 2564 27441 1940 1 2567 28514 1940 2 2579 29274 1940 3 2583 27319 1940 4 2586 27547 1940 5 2593 28077 1940 6 2593 29196 1940 7 2591 29605 1940 8 2597 36229 1940 9 2598 28524 1940 10 2600 28485 1940 11 2591 27613 1940 12 2595 26278 1941 1 2649 30422 1941 2 2657 32895 1941 3 2665 32502 1941 4 2659 31618 1941 5 2663 31226 1941 6 2662 33787 1941 7 2665 32047 1941 8 2652 34242 1941 9 2652 24556 1941 10 2661 24823 1941 11 2665 20372 1941 12 2658 6377 1942 1 2676 9057 1942 2 2675 8851 1942 3 2676 9141 1942 4 2680 9741 1942 5 2677 9882 1942 6 2680 8688 1942 7 2673 8018 1942 8 2663 9263 1942 9 2659 6888 1942 10 2667 7182 1942 11 2664 7409 1942 12 2667 5471 1943 1 2690 6317 1943 2 2680 7930 1943 3 2688 7737 1943 4 2677 7696 1943 5 2670 8902 1943 6 2691 9392 1943 7 2691 10389 1943 8 2687 12103 1943 9 2686 10812 1943 10 2691 9758 1943 11 2678 10078 1943 12 2691 10473 1944 1 2702 11855 1944 2 2700 13209 1944 3 2690 13493 1944 4 2697 13447 1944 5 2705 14400 1944 6 2711 16558 1944 7 2695 16365 1944 8 2698 20256 1944 9 2707 17134 1944 10 2708 16728 1944 11 2708 15216 1944 12 2715 14298 1945 1 2714 16195 1945 2 2723 17435 1945 3 2729 21531 1945 4 2715 27091 1945 5 2715 28044 1945 6 2728 30654 1945 7 2718 29058 1945 8 2726 33397 1945 9 2738 30647 1945 10 2737 29362 1945 11 2731 30493 1945 12 2734 29978 1946 1 2764 21038 1946 2 2754 15471 1946 3 2760 13423 1946 4 2760 15720 1946 5 2753 14921 1946 6 2758 14287 1946 7 2762 16645 1946 8 2762 19664 1946 9 2760 17655 1946 10 2770 18754 1946 11 2777 18388 1946 12 2767 16741 1947 1 2796 17919 1947 2 2808 19885 1947 3 2804 20161 1947 4 2793 20709 1947 5 2800 22214 1947 6 2800 23757 1947 7 2797 23489 1947 8 2808 26023 1947 9 2807 22333 1947 10 2808 20453 1947 11 2811 20515 1947 12 2818 20329 1948 1 2839 21248 1948 2 2844 23115 1948 3 2840 25465 1948 4 2847 25104 1948 5 2831 28012 1948 6 2846 27132 1948 7 2838 28875 1948 8 2834 32592 1948 9 2850 29505 1948 10 2854 28279 1948 11 2863 29406 1948 12 2868 23245 1949 1 2890 31375 1949 2 2888 36145 1949 3 2887 38425 1949 4 2890 35366 1949 5 2883 37909 1949 6 2886 38210 1949 7 2890 40682 1949 8 2884 49560 1949 9 2878 40059 1949 10 2896 40399 1949 11 2903 36715 1949 12 2900 31319 1950 1 2959 30500 1950 2 2954 34413 1950 3 2957 35873 1950 4 2970 34858 1950 5 2969 36910 1950 6 2965 42268 1950 7 2972 38391 1950 8 2981 46371 1950 9 2981 36665 1950 10 2974 39079 1950 11 2980 37783 1950 12 2973 36352 1951 1 3443 39472 1951 2 3439 45228 1951 3 3434 46011 1951 4 3435 46443 1951 5 3453 45493 1951 6 3456 41831 1951 7 3461 42742 1951 8 3475 53897 1951 9 3485 46829 1951 10 3484 43847 1951 11 3495 44075 1951 12 3489 44040 1952 1 3516 43927 1952 2 3522 50880 1952 3 3518 49936 1952 4 3525 49498 1952 5 3525 49857 1952 6 3541 53832 1952 7 3542 52794 1952 8 3529 63560 1952 9 3537 53909 1952 10 3536 52147 1952 11 3542 48887 1952 12 3535 46964 1953 1 3560 49540 1953 2 3566 53694 1953 3 3564 54372 1953 4 3571 57834 1953 5 3581 61735 1953 6 3581 62883 1953 7 3578 64028 1953 8 3579 76800 1953 9 3570 64583 1953 10 3577 64218 1953 11 3585 60909 1953 12 3589 59200 1954 1 3593 55437 1954 2 3598 58774 1954 3 3589 60527 1954 4 3585 59221 1954 5 3589 63695 1954 6 3605 64968 1954 7 3589 63753 1954 8 3593 73439 1954 9 3605 63054 1954 10 3602 62248 1954 11 3606 61566 1954 12 3606 58935 1955 1 3627 59446 1955 2 3617 63914 1955 3 3623 65207 1955 4 3634 64049 1955 5 3628 66041 1955 6 3627 66892 1955 7 3635 67103 1955 8 3645 82178 1955 9 3621 70525 1955 10 3633 70241 1955 11 3618 73050 1955 12 3631 68388 1956 1 3647 66341 1956 2 3646 71145 1956 3 3640 73195 1956 4 3635 75212 1956 5 3649 75636 1956 6 3650 77370 1956 7 3649 78181 1956 8 3649 95343 1956 9 3647 79752 1956 10 3660 78668 1956 11 3654 82447 1956 12 3650 78563 1957 1 3637 76980 1957 2 3630 84348 1957 3 3649 88429 1957 4 3645 85826 1957 5 3642 89327 1957 6 3644 91524 1957 7 3645 91178 1957 8 3648 107763 1957 9 3637 93257 1957 10 3646 89325 1957 11 3647 91803 1957 12 3647 85482 1958 1 3658 82031 1958 2 3655 86666 1958 3 3645 89156 1958 4 3654 90288 1958 5 3649 96446 1958 6 3650 95906 1958 7 3659 96679 1958 8 3654 113770 1958 9 3658 95068 1958 10 3661 93729 1958 11 3653 93905 1958 12 3654 86841 1959 1 3663 89246 1959 2 3664 95469 1959 3 3668 96770 1959 4 3668 93615 1959 5 3663 99812 1959 6 3660 103846 1959 7 3667 103597 1959 8 3683 122355 1959 9 3674 101648 1959 10 3664 100892 1959 11 3658 102832 1959 12 3670 97362 1960 1 3698 94566 1960 2 3705 103264 1960 3 3700 103923 1960 4 3704 101490 1960 5 3712 103786 1960 6 3708 107944 1960 7 3698 107083 1960 8 3703 125010 1960 9 3715 107504 1960 10 3726 107936 1960 11 3735 107677 1960 12 3720 101229 1961 1 3763 96203 1961 2 3763 103063 1961 3 3773 103095 1961 4 3764 103842 1961 5 3786 104685 1961 6 3795 103170 1961 7 3766 92255 1961 8 3766 114271 1961 9 3768 98259 1961 10 3784 94760 1961 11 3776 94532 1961 12 3757 90244 1962 1 3825 95543 1962 2 3819 101143 1962 3 3814 103861 1962 4 3780 100242 1962 5 3810 103590 1962 6 3815 88409 1962 7 3791 85440 1962 8 3851 96062 1962 9 3836 83533 1962 10 3828 84251 1962 11 3832 84496 1962 12 3828 76418 1963 1 3855 86131 1963 2 3862 95493 1963 3 3863 105605 1963 4 3868 105736 1963 5 3867 108496 1963 6 3875 104510 1963 7 3869 102932 1963 8 3875 122201 1963 9 3886 103186 1963 10 3868 102887 1963 11 3869 101202 1963 12 3880 95444 1964 1 3869 118582 1964 2 3892 129125 1964 3 3897 132471 1964 4 3882 130855 1964 5 3879 135637 1964 6 3881 139095 1964 7 3885 135885 1964 8 3875 161849 1964 9 3879 137592 1964 10 3888 136241 1964 11 3878 136121 1964 12 3866 124348 1965 1 3922 131164 1965 2 3937 135920 1965 3 3926 144510 1965 4 3921 148274 1965 5 3921 153689 1965 6 3915 153188 1965 7 3918 150252 1965 8 3906 178342 1965 9 3914 147018 1965 10 3916 146068 1965 11 3913 141209 1965 12 3918 133084 1966 1 3917 138551 1966 2 3949 150490 1966 3 3945 151099 1966 4 3936 149882 1966 5 3938 152200 1966 6 3953 155021 1966 7 3959 163084 1966 8 3963 187009 1966 9 3966 156376 1966 10 3975 158476 1966 11 3977 162293 1966 12 3965 148478 1967 1 3978 154138 1967 2 3979 176653 1967 3 3972 177696 1967 4 3968 175069 1967 5 3973 174241 1967 6 3970 182869 1967 7 3987 187735 1967 8 3980 223594 1967 9 3985 184215 1967 10 3983 186129 1967 11 3969 181280 1967 12 3949 168222 1968 1 3958 156703 1968 2 3967 176855 1968 3 3979 174413 1968 4 3972 178784 1968 5 3958 184972 1968 6 3987 180622 1968 7 3980 183281 1968 8 3967 213844 1968 9 3963 185344 1968 10 3979 182072 1968 11 3968 176684 1968 12 3952 166109 1969 1 3971 160494 1969 2 3989 175888 1969 3 3979 173946 1969 4 3978 177411 1969 5 4002 176177 1969 6 3992 184293 1969 7 3997 177853 1969 8 3999 199448 1969 9 4000 169662 1969 10 3997 167169 1969 11 3984 166907 1969 12 3979 148030 1970 1 3955 151054 1970 2 3966 160115 1970 3 3962 165828 1970 4 3979 165680 1970 5 3955 171550 1970 6 3975 176483 1970 7 3963 170304 1970 8 3955 194643 1970 9 3967 171414 1970 10 3977 169081 1970 11 3980 167065 1970 12 3981 155317 1971 1 3794 139643 1971 2 3775 156001 1971 3 3778 165288 1971 4 3769 162410 1971 5 3774 164824 1971 6 3774 163522 1971 7 3785 152986 1971 8 3785 179145 1971 9 3812 150976 1971 10 3798 150079 1971 11 3773 146618 1971 12 3746 135448 1972 1 3790 142741 1972 2 3777 145114 1972 3 3767 153029 1972 4 3735 154702 1972 5 3725 149918 1972 6 3748 152224 1972 7 3730 152751 1972 8 3725 177832 1972 9 3712 156078 1972 10 3708 153731 1972 11 3685 150005 1972 12 3700 139159 1973 1 3747 140300 1973 2 3750 153177 1973 3 3739 147493 1973 4 3726 143310 1973 5 3712 151416 1973 6 3717 165624 1973 7 3715 157355 1973 8 3746 181338 1973 9 3709 157935 1973 10 3689 151996 1973 11 3667 141316 1973 12 3666 134032 1974 1 3730 128821 1974 2 3748 146603 1974 3 3731 147450 1974 4 3744 142084 1974 5 3714 148338 1974 6 3739 139372 1974 7 3708 137943 1974 8 3712 184067 1974 9 3699 139225 1974 10 3702 150930 1974 11 3687 148514 1974 12 3645 139847 1975 1 3680 134488 1975 2 3697 155015 1975 3 3659 150421 1975 4 3686 151212 1975 5 3680 154900 1975 6 3710 159852 1975 7 3677 157166 1975 8 3640 177642 1975 9 3632 154707 1975 10 3635 152470 1975 11 3639 151617 1975 12 3578 138798 1976 1 3648 133442 1976 2 3669 148362 1976 3 3684 148077 1976 4 3643 148381 1976 5 3622 152997 1976 6 3685 152815 1976 7 3666 146489 1976 8 3653 168748 1976 9 3613 142908 1976 10 3622 147187 1976 11 3615 145825 1976 12 3584 133955 1977 1 3648 127087 1977 2 3642 139437 1977 3 3662 142094 1977 4 3653 138660 1977 5 3653 140287 1977 6 3642 139387 1977 7 3628 142168 1977 8 3643 159231 1977 9 3615 138122 1977 10 3597 139449 1977 11 3580 135304 1977 12 3513 127037 1978 1 3646 125678 1978 2 3659 140287 1978 3 3651 140829 1978 4 3595 142576 1978 5 3645 142261 1978 6 3627 129148 1978 7 3611 145642 1978 8 3621 172571 1978 9 3568 145835 1978 10 3555 143144 1978 11 3538 146004 1978 12 3535 152781 1979 1 3587 157545 1979 2 3555 174917 1979 3 3596 175119 1979 4 3564 178898 1979 5 3557 191470 1979 6 3571 193948 1979 7 3539 195457 1979 8 3593 225056 1979 9 3566 192078 1979 10 3576 193661 1979 11 3564 187710 1979 12 3546 160651 1980 1 3565 168993 1980 2 3549 189251 1980 3 3561 187644 1980 4 3563 193523 1980 5 3557 199054 1980 6 3569 193609 1980 7 3559 190491 1980 8 3523 222613 1980 9 3525 188588 1980 10 3535 187363 1980 11 3497 191557 1980 12 3458 176228 1981 1 3614 174256 1981 2 3635 182386 1981 3 3629 183872 1981 4 3611 187340 1981 5 3593 186876 1981 6 3594 185969 1981 7 3593 186622 1981 8 3600 214783 1981 9 3608 188578 1981 10 3600 185092 1981 11 3597 188207 1981 12 3577 164419 1982 1 3548 147759 1982 2 3564 164827 1982 3 3563 173024 1982 4 3557 178276 1982 5 3562 179009 1982 6 3559 183110 1982 7 3553 174901 1982 8 3570 204590 1982 9 3575 176208 1982 10 3584 179790 1982 11 3563 176058 1982 12 3569 159764 1983 1 3531 151567 1983 2 3584 172916 1983 3 3580 172081 1983 4 3585 177848 1983 5 3567 179132 1983 6 3584 188627 1983 7 3552 185744 1983 8 3556 213231 1983 9 3558 184108 1983 10 3590 184188 1983 11 3556 183758 1983 12 3536 168231 1984 1 3560 163237 1984 2 3555 184115 1984 3 3537 186548 1984 4 3539 185697 1984 5 3542 192002 1984 6 3552 194792 1984 7 3567 194908 1984 8 3532 229712 1984 9 3519 199433 1984 10 3512 204710 1984 11 3539 205210 1984 12 3507 185857 1985 1 3552 182282 1985 2 3558 196724 1985 3 3564 203717 1985 4 3563 207969 1985 5 3532 209236 1985 6 3536 212682 1985 7 3541 209384 1985 8 3545 251933 1985 9 3542 207813 1985 10 3533 211838 1985 11 3495 203536 1985 12 3448 194659 1986 1 3476 200406 1986 2 3484 220694 1986 3 3505 227634 1986 4 3522 240757 1986 5 3522 235142 1986 6 3492 238302 1986 7 3526 230719 1986 8 3503 173449 1986 9 3480 222639 1986 10 3461 221883 1986 11 3451 224251 1986 12 3469 203463 1987 1 3489 211540 1987 2 3488 218966 1987 3 3474 210695 1987 4 3476 220189 1987 5 3470 230699 1987 6 3468 231938 1987 7 3481 225311 1987 8 3455 263841 1987 9 3468 227341 1987 10 3487 225505 1987 11 3456 223344 1987 12 3467 207500 1988 1 3472 205243 1988 2 3462 217489 1988 3 3475 220171 1988 4 3453 226295 1988 5 3452 228858 1988 6 3431 231096 1988 7 3431 230198 1988 8 3455 270846 1988 9 3429 230488 1988 10 3443 227219 1988 11 3446 219810 1988 12 3415 200929 1989 1 3407 206883 1989 2 3417 210892 1989 3 3404 206213 1989 4 3420 211599 1989 5 3419 221530 1989 6 3382 211783 1989 7 3409 212930 1989 8 3372 249617 1989 9 3404 215352 1989 10 3404 212301 1989 11 3389 210508 1989 12 3376 190628 1990 1 3302 187149 1990 2 3282 207064 1990 3 3305 208858 1990 4 3301 208655 1990 5 3263 217298 1990 6 3254 223236 1990 7 3224 218158 1990 8 3215 259527 1990 9 3207 222660 1990 10 3272 223994 1990 11 3249 218805 1990 12 3225 203398 1991 1 3031 191900 1991 2 3005 205933 1991 3 3018 202262 1991 4 3009 206264 1991 5 2992 209405 1991 6 2988 201436 1991 7 2956 194419 1991 8 2946 236588 1991 9 3021 207477 1991 10 2972 202541 1991 11 2913 193774 1991 12 2919 190653 1992 1 2966 190414 1992 2 2924 207872 1992 3 2909 213678 1992 4 2951 218518 1992 5 2978 222752 1992 6 2955 225022 1992 7 2908 222185 1992 8 2937 251610 1992 9 2931 231433 1992 10 2925 236427 1992 11 2907 232292 1992 12 2892 220021 1993 1 2891 212395 1993 2 2882 219427 1993 3 2873 228425 1993 4 2873 240542 1993 5 2844 246552 1993 6 2862 252464 1993 7 2863 246119 1993 8 2887 290595 1993 9 2879 247000 1993 10 2894 256565 1993 11 2839 256480 1993 12 2865 246501 1994 1 2868 235225 1994 2 2887 237641 1994 3 2885 239660 1994 4 2856 242788 1994 5 2841 249338 1994 6 2850 251151 1994 7 2865 248779 1994 8 2817 306413 1994 9 2845 253888 1994 10 2841 241097 1994 11 2830 246794 1994 12 2818 230848 1995 1 2855 228254 1995 2 2851 255159 1995 3 2886 255555 1995 4 2856 268762 1995 5 2836 286636 1995 6 2848 288197 1995 7 2805 292975 1995 8 2824 353404 1995 9 2823 307411 1995 10 2822 304703 1995 11 2815 303046 1995 12 2795 294207 1996 1 2811 279445 1996 2 2802 300400 1996 3 2782 288988 1996 4 2786 296535 1996 5 2762 303215 1996 6 2779 309025 1996 7 2738 300412 1996 8 2754 358741 1996 9 2751 303620 1996 10 2728 296934 1996 11 2708 286100 1996 12 1831 267791 1997 1 1796 262437 1997 2 1829 260134 1997 3 1821 259821 1997 4 1829 261570 1997 5 1805 269436 1997 6 1767 263288 1997 7 1783 279058 1997 8 1791 328243 1997 9 1790 280173 1997 10 1808 278867 1997 11 1796 263306 1997 12 1763 248122 1998 1 1791 244447 1998 2 1808 257042 1998 3 1789 261764 1998 4 1784 259000 1998 5 1754 259785 1998 6 1796 270941 1998 7 1796 282540 1998 8 1802 321656 1998 9 1800 274377 1998 10 1786 273521 1998 11 1777 273788 1998 12 1754 259231 1999 1 1763 243193 1999 2 1779 265998 1999 3 1770 275337 1999 4 1752 280947 1999 5 1764 305908 1999 6 1767 319398 1999 7 1761 329098 1999 8 1753 390664 1999 9 1745 322103 1999 10 1743 333307 1999 11 1719 335112 1999 12 1721 338367 2000 1 1685 333926 2000 2 1666 326633 2000 3 1667 336638 2000 4 1674 352589 2000 5 1638 361560 2000 6 1691 360409 2000 7 1660 358267 2000 8 1691 432211 2000 9 1663 363254 2000 10 1672 367694 2000 11 1621 345585 2000 12 1609 332040 2001 1 1412 324347 2001 2 1421 337992 2001 3 1408 338271 2001 4 1419 352081 2001 5 1342 353540 2001 6 1392 344984 2001 7 1394 358135 2001 8 1424 443623 2001 9 1416 392191 2001 10 1397 395581 2001 11 1380 387252 2001 12 1378 371474 2002 1 1373 378807 2002 2 1387 378673 2002 3 1412 380143 2002 4 1389 423277 2002 5 1393 436461 2002 6 1406 446232 2002 7 1405 427782 2002 8 1401 529925 2002 9 1436 408815 2002 10 1421 407576 2002 11 1438 402362 2002 12 1426 404481 2003 1 1431 389873 2003 2 1416 401964 2003 3 1377 412023 2003 4 1399 416784 2003 5 1410 465767 2003 6 1411 502345 2003 7 1380 496224 2003 8 1368 582494 2003 9 1411 505112 2003 10 1442 489224 2003 11 1410 458436 2003 12 1432 462667 2004 1 1455 453682 2004 2 1424 460367 2004 3 1417 474026 2004 4 1379 483542 2004 5 1375 492803 2004 6 1357 491132 2004 7 1382 509813 2004 8 1358 593722 2004 9 1381 519319 2004 10 1358 524451 2004 11 1340 520969 2004 12 1381 506139 2005 1 1397 522540 2005 2 1371 725158 2005 3 1368 712198 2005 4 1385 708032 2005 5 1373 758473 2005 6 1385 812630 2005 7 1378 933012 2005 8 1390 1147076 2005 9 1390 975411 2005 10 1430 1045093 2005 11 1473 1044897 2005 12 1441 1055235 2006 1 1391 1085075 2006 2 1449 1095210 2006 3 1450 1067788 2006 4 1438 1081845 2006 5 1428 1059323 2006 6 1273 1019208 2006 7 1269 1060929 2006 8 1230 1252968 2006 9 1192 1049753 2006 10 1258 1037722 2006 11 1288 1081240 2006 12 1220 1071041 2007 1 1191 1047173 2007 2 1167 1050216 2007 3 1147 1037870 2007 4 1163 1051157 2007 5 1165 1025338 2007 6 1188 920330 2007 7 1180 940067 2007 8 1138 1132323 2007 9 1192 1018359 2007 10 1146 995136 2007 11 1081 1034062 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4297. 2008-01-15 09:57:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 15 09:57:08 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Some text to: David Thompson Dave, Rather than go through the doc file, I'll make a few points directly by email. 1. I'll reckon you'll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for review. One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences. Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract from the main 1945 message. 2. The variability increase as you move back in time is mostly sampling and inevitable. Probably needs saying - could a foot/endnote. I don't think this would be any different if you'd used HadCRUT3v or CRUTEM3v, but I'd like to believe it would be!! 3. You mention regressions for ENSO and COWL. Can you give these regression coefficients? Or are they sort of pre-determined from theory? I read this late last night and couldn't quite follow. Some less important points. 1. With COWL, you could essentially smooth the series and get much the same result i.e. if you extracted just COWL then smoothed and compared with raw smoothed they would look much the same. 2. The companion paper on volcanoes ought to try and set up a measure for the drops - so it is all repeatable. I reckon there are one or two smaller NH volcanoes you might pick up. 3. With Fig4 you probably also need to show a plot of the overall SST count per year. % US/UK is OK, but this hides much reduced numbers in the 1940s. Perhaps you could show a plot of %US, %UK and %others in three colours in a cumulative way - soo all adds to 100%. 4. The bucket/engine room argument is the wrong way round. The change was to UK ships in Aug 45. 5. Could also add that the UK/US are digitizing more WW2 UK (RN) ships. I take it you're aware of the fate of the US WW2 navy ships. Scott Woodruff sent me the attached - he blacked out the name of who signed this! 6. We are the Climatic Research Unit and you could give our web site where all these series are. 7. T subscript E isn't defined. It is the whole tropics from surface to TOA to get the 255K. It's not defined as I can see why it is E. E for equator? 8. I presume the regressions are also based on 1950-2006 just like the correlations in the Table. Also these are monthly or appear to be from the plots. Are they similar for annual data? 9. With the ENSO series in the middle of Fig1. You could show how this compares with a suitably smoothed SOI. It looks as though it will agree well. I'm attaching an article where I sort of did this with regression against the SOI. 10. Does COWL look like a high-freq NAM? COWL seems to lose variability before 1880. Cheers Phil At 03:05 14/01/2008, you wrote: Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave  On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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 Earthâs Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [2]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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [3]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [5]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [7]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 [8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [9]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 [10]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [11]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4786. 2008-01-15 10:40:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , "Sheppard Sylv Miss ((SCI))" date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:40:52 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Climate Normals Dataset to: HVeregin@RandMcNally.com Hi Howard, You are welcome to use the CL 2.0 dataset - which, as Phil explains below, is just a Climatology. If you wish to also use the global gridded dataset, the current version is 2.1 and the forthcoming version is 3.0. CRU CL 2.0 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tmc.htm CRU TS 2.1 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/hrg/cru_ts_2.10/ Note that for TS 2.10, the dataset is available in two formats. The original, cell-by-cell format is at the top level, and a newer timestep-by-timestep version is in the 'newly_gridded' directory. Hope that helps, Cheers Harry On 15 Jan 2008, at 9:20, Phil Jones wrote: > > Howard, > We have a new version (3.0) which isn't that different from the > version 2.0 > on our web site. > I'm cc'ing Ian Harris on this email, as he's producing this. > This is just > the high-resolution grids. We won't be doing the country series > this time > as we don't have the resources. > If you just want the climatology (i.e. no time series) then the > link to CRU CL 2.0 > will be fine for you and you're welcome to use it. Just > acknowledge the New et al. > reference for the climatology. > > The new version is an update (to 2007) and includes more recent > data from the 1990s > onwards and additional data we've received in the last 5 years. > The climatology > we use for 1961-90 hasn't been altered. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 18:09 14/01/2008, you wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> I am the editor of Goode's World Atlas, a print atlas that my company >> (Rand McNally) publishes for the university market (primarily U.S.). >> >> We are updating the atlas for the 22nd edition, which is to be >> published >> in 2009. We intend to update numerous climate maps in the atlas, >> including >> >> - World climate regions (Koppen or similar classification) based on >> current climate normals >> - World precipitation and temperature >> - Precipitation and temperature for the continents >> - Precipitation and temperature for specific countries >> - Possibly a variety of other maps as well, including precipitation >> variability, temperature ranges, relative humidity, sunshine >> probability, and other variables, at the world, continental, and >> country >> scales >> >> I've taken a look at the CRU CL 2.0 dataset, and it seems to work >> quite >> well for these purposes. Mark New (see thread below) suggested I >> contact >> you about extending permission to use the data. >> >> We would initially be publishing these maps in the 22nd edition of >> Goode's World Atlas. Typically, the maps would continue to be >> published >> until they are again updated, which is normally many editions. >> Also, we >> may make a digital version of the maps available to professors, or >> as a >> separate product. Finally, it is likely that the maps would end up >> being >> used for other products as well, such as educational wall maps or >> desk >> maps, our on-line digital map service, and in non-Rand McNally >> atlases >> or textbooks where we supply cartography only. >> >> I'm writing, then, to request permission to use the CRU CL 2.0 data >> (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tmc.htm) for the preparation of >> both >> print and electronic versions of our climate maps, initially for the >> 22nd edition of Goode's World Atlas but also for subsequent >> editions of >> the atlas, as well as for the other products I've described above. >> >> Since we are a commercial publisher, if arrangements need to be >> made to >> license the data, please let me know the details. >> >> If citation/attribution is required please let me know if any special >> wording is required. Otherwise we will cite >> >> New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M. and Makin, I., 2002: A high-resolution >> data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Research >> 21:1-25 >> (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/grid/CRU_CL_2_0.html). >> >> Thank you for your efforts in advance. >> >> Howard >> >> >> Howard Veregin, Ph.D. >> Director, Geographic Information Services >> Editor, Goode's World Atlas >> Rand McNally >> 8255 North Central Park Ave. >> Skokie, IL 60076 >> hveregin@randmcnally.com >> 847-329-6736 >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mark New [mailto:mark.new@ouce.ox.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 8:32 AM >> To: Veregin, Howard >> Subject: RE: Climate Normals Dataset >> >> Dear Howard, >> >> I think there would not be a problem using CRU data for maps - for >> instance >> they have been used in other publications / atlases, such as the >> atlas >> of >> desertification. >> >> For oceans, you would have to rely on other sources - I suggest >> one of >> the >> satellite products. >> >> If you do decide to use the CRU data, please contact Phil Jones at >> CRU >> (p.jones@uea.ac.uk) as he is the custodian of the data (I no >> longer work >> at >> CRU, though am still involved in updating the data). >> >> Mark >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Veregin, Howard [mailto:HVeregin@RandMcNally.com] >> Sent: 22 June 2007 16:38 >> To: mark.new@geog.ox.ac.uk >> Subject: Climate Normals Dataset >> >> Greetings >> >> >> >> I'm interested in one of your global 10-minute datasets. Rand McNally >> (the >> company I work for) publishes a university atlas called Goode's World >> Atlas, >> for which I am the Editor. In preparation for a new edition coming >> out >> in >> 2009 we are considering updating some of our global climate maps >> showing >> precipitation and temperature. The CRU CL 2.0 dataset seems like it >> might >> suit us quite well. However, >> >> >> >> (a) Since we are a commercial publisher, what sort of >> arrangements >> would >> need to be made to license the data, assuming this is even possible? >> >> (b) Our current maps show temp and precip over oceans as well as >> land. >> Are there any plans to extend coverage of climate variables to oceans >> for >> the CRU CL datasets?? >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance for your help. >> >> >> >> Howard >> >> >> >> >> >> Howard Veregin, PhD >> >> Director, GIS Operations >> >> Rand McNally & Co. >> >> Skokie, Illinois >> >> 847-329-6736 >> >> hveregin@randmcnally.com >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> This E-mail is confidential. It should not be read, copied, >> disclosed or >> used by any person other than the intended recipient. Unauthorized >> use, >> disclosure or copying by whatever medium is strictly prohibited >> and may >> be >> unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please >> contact the >> sender immediately and delete the E-mail from your system. >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/857 - Release Date: >> 20/06/2007 >> 14:18 >> >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/857 - Release Date: >> 20/06/2007 >> 14:18 >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> >> This E-mail is confidential. It should not be read, copied, >> disclosed or used by any person other than the intended recipient. >> Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying by whatever medium is >> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this >> E-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete >> the E-mail from your 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1839. 2008-01-15 12:45:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jan 15 12:45:58 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn to: Jean Jouzel Jean, There are lots of other poor papers appearing at the moment. Susan is encouraging us all to write responses to them. I'm trying to do one, Ben Santer another and maybe David Parker a third. All are wrong, but it just takes time to put something useful together. Why can't people just accept that the IPCC is right!! In Britain we have people saying that the evidence is accepted - we've won the war, now let's act! I'll see if I can persuade someone to follow up on the Science editorial. I did talk to the journalist, mostly trying to persuade him not to run with the story. Cheers Phil From The Sunday Times January 13, 2008 The Hot Topic: How to Tackle Global Warming and Still Keep the Lights On by Gabrielle Walker and David King Reviewed by Richard Girling It will be said of this book that it should be pressed into the hands of all those who deny the reality of climate change, or who think human activity is not contributing to it. But of course it won't be and, even if it were, they wouldn't open it. Those on Planet Exxon are beyond the pull of reason. The fate of Gabrielle Walker and David King will be to preach to the converted. It does no harm to have an endorsement from Al Gore (who found the book "a beacon of clarity"), but how much more satisfying it would have been to see Dick Cheney on the cover. Cheney and King, who until recently was chief scientific adviser to the UK government, are mutual bêtes noirs. Cheney, the former vice-president of Halliburton, typifies for King the commercial degradation of American politics, exalting economic short-termism über alles and inviting the future to go hang itself. For the string-pullers in the Bush administration, King is a wantonly destructive mullah in a scientific axis of evil. In 2004, when he concluded that climate change was a worse threat than terrorism, the White House let the dogs out. Bush's climate-change adviser Myron Ebell (who, not-so-coincidentally, was director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Exxon-funded "think-tank") denounced King as "an alarmist with ridiculous views who knows nothing about climate change". Given airtime by Radio 4's Today programme, Ebell argued that global warming was "a tissue of improbabilities" cooked up by European climatologists in the pay of governments whose only interest was to "attack America's economic superiority". Even No 10, self-proclaimed world leader on climate change, took fright and tried to put a sock in King's mouth (amusingly, he was advised to steer clear of Today). With Australia, America's last partner in obduracy, now having signed up to the Kyoto Protocol (an event that occurred too late for the authors to celebrate here), the world has decided whose views it finds ridiculous. Insofar as the science is concerned, the battle is won and the opposition reduced, as Walker and King put it, to "vested interests or fools", who won't be queuing to read this exposure of their stupidity. Even America itself has had to acknowledge the probable existence of man-made climate change. But this does not mean the future can sleep easy in its bed. "Social, economic and cultural barriers," the authors say, "all stand between the world we have now and the one we will soon have as climate takes its toll." With the clarity that Gore rightly commends, they do a fine job of setting out the issues. If you've got a climate sceptic to deal with, you'll find all the ammunition you need to puncture his certainties. Even-handedly, they do the same with the end-is-nigh overstatements of the extremely-greens - no, the Gulf Stream is not about to shut down, and it will take time before London, New York and Tokyo are consumed by floods. Much of the content will be familiar to any literate person with an interest in the world. But as well as revisiting the basics (why and how warming is happening, why we need carbon reduction targets, what faces us if we fail to meet them), Hot Topic precisely locates the political impasse and delineates the issues that have to be resolved between the developed countries (which caused the problem and possess the technological resources to defend themselves) and the developing ones (who are innocent victims but will bear the worst and earliest consequences). Where does fairness lie? Should the heaviest polluters with the most luxurious lifestyles gradually cut their emissions, and the lightest polluters with the most deprived lifestyles be allowed to increase theirs until they meet at some mutually agreeable point in the middle? Should targets be set for individual market sectors or industries? Should emissions targets be calculated per unit of economic growth (a proposal unlikely to have much effect environmentally, but likely to favoured by the Americans)? How can multinational polluters such as air transport and shipping be accounted for? Remarkably, while acknowledging that "no single approach will be acceptable to everybody", Walker and King manage to keep their spirits up. They identify some unlikely heroes - Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, who has committed his Californian bailiwick to an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 and, to set an example, "has taken to driving a hybrid Hummer"; and the citizens of the oilman's capital, Austin, Texas, who aim to be carbon-neutral by 2020. They encourage us to be part of the solution. We mustn't be nimbyish about wind-farms; must be open-minded about nuclear power; must measure and reduce our carbon footprints. We must keep ourselves informed, and make sure our community leaders do the same. To be fully connected citizens of the modern world, we need to understand the price our children and grandchildren will pay if we refuse to acknowledge their right to a livable planet. The catastrophes of Katrina and Darfur might not have been due directly to global warming but, in their hideous combinations of natural disaster and human conflict, they stand as stark templates for an unreformed world. No family bookshelf is complete without an account of the most burning issue of the age. "I don't believe," said King, at the time of his attempted muzzling in 2004, "that we can keep the public on side if it is not understood . . . that our scientists are prepared to give out and say what they mean." That he stood his ground, and has said what he means with such lucidity, is a material gain for the axis of good. Warm-up men Walker and King take aim in their book at several of the more common myths about climate change. They dismiss arguments that it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today ("temperatures are higher now than they have been for at least 1,000 years", they insist) and disagree with the idea that warming is due to changes in the sun (in fact, "left to itself, the sun would have caused a slight cooling"). The disappearance of snow from Mount Kilimanjaro, they point out, tells us little about global warming (the retreat actually started in the early 19th century, and is not yet fully understood), and Antarctica is not about to slide into the sea - the old, cold eastern half is unlikely to melt, and much of the more vulnerable West Antarctic ice sheet can be saved, they say, if we act quickly. THE HOT TOPIC: How to Tackle Global Warming and Still Keep the Lights On by Gabrielle Walker and David King Bloomsbury £9.99 pp309 Available at the Books First price of £9.49 (including p&p) on 0870 165 8585 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2583. 2008-01-15 12:59:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Michael E. Mann" date: Tue Jan 15 12:59:44 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Edouard Bard to: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov Gavin, Mike, Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert. Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad. One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science. I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is poor at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard. See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well ! I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows who and why it appoints its fellows! In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were awfiul. Cheers Phil From: Jean Jouzel Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail ([1]http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for your help in getting some support to Edouard, which is really needed. Certainly one thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20°N Briffa et al. data set as global. May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know .... Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you With my best Jean At 15:29 +0000 14/01/08, Phil Jones wrote: Jean, Will you be going to the EGU in Vienna this April? This disagreement with Courtillot seems to be getting out of hand. Edouard isn't having a great time at the moment. The data Courtillot used is not on the CRU web site. We did produce it, but for a paper Keith worked on in 2002. Courtillot's global is CRU data, but not the globe - it is land north of 20N and April to September only! The French Academy is looking a bit of a laughing stock! I did meet Courtillot in March last year - he was courteous, but he should read the literature! Cheers Phil X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arbois.cerege.fr Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:20:00 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Edouard BARD Subject: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.4 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >Courtillot says he will soon publish two studies arguing that methods used to measure global T need to be revised. Wonder if these are the two that I rejected! Maybe one day he'll realise that there is oceanic data! Cheers Phil Hello Phil, These are indeed the papers submitted to EPSL. Courtillot has control on other journals and I'm sure he will manage to publish them somewhere else ... As you can read below, Courtillot accused me publicly of scientific misconduct in a written message sent in copy to the president of the Academy of Science, to the president of the CNRS and to the Director of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. According to Courtillot, my misconduct is that I have acted as a hacker, introducing a "note added in proof" in my EPSL paper without the editor and the publisher even knowing it ! Courtillot even requested the organization this week of a secret meeting at the Academy in order to expose the case (yes, you've read it correctly, this is officially called "un comité secret"). I am not a member of the Academy and nobody is there to defend my case. Hence, I was obliged to write this long email to explain my position to some academicians. I'm not really planning for sending soon something to Science as my next week will be hectic with this "inquisition" committee against me and the impact of the "droit de réponse" in newspaper(s). I am sure that Courtillot will even use Pasotti's poor paper against me during the audit of the case at the Academy. As I am the main author for the Comment, sending a rebuttal to Science may even be counterproductive. Do you plan to send something to Science about the fact that the Figure misrepresent Tglobe ? I'm quite depressed because this is taking a lot of my time and energy. Everybody at home is mad at me, children and wife, because I spend hours and days in the lab writing and checking emails and answering phone calls. Best wishes, Edouard Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:14 +0100 To: bard@cerege.fr From: Edouard BARD Subject: Accusations de M. Courtillot Destinataires: Madame la Présidente du CNRS, Monsieur le Président de l'Académie des Sciences, Monsieur le Directeur de Cabinet de Madame la Ministre de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Mesdames et Messieurs, Membres de l'Académie (incluant M. Courtillot). Chers Collègues, Je reviens à l'instant d'une tournée de conférences en Angleterre (Royal Geographical Society de Londres et Université de Cambridge). J'apprends avec stupeur que Monsieur Courtillot m'attaque personnellement et publiquement d'avoir eu un comportement contraire à l'éthique scientifique ("contrairement aux règles déontologiques, la note de M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire critique", cf. plus bas le message envoyé hier le 11 janvier et dont vous êtes destinataires). Cette accusation surprenante est totalement infondée. Je rappelle que dans mon Commentaire qui vient d'être publié par la revue Earth & Planetary Science Letters (EPSL, pdf attaché), je n'ai proféré aucune accusation à l'égard de M. Courtillot. J'évite justement d'avoir un ton polémique en me cantonnant à des discussions dans l'arène scientifique, par exemple mes interventions lors du colloque organisé par M. Courtillot à l'Académie des Sciences (conférence et débat disponibles sur le site internet de l'Académie: [2]http://www.academie-sciences.fr/conferences/seances_publiques/html/debat_13_03_07.ht m [3]http://www.canalacademie.com/Modelisation-du-climat-et-role-du.html ou mes publications, notamment ce 'Commentaire' Bard & Delaygue (2008 EPSL). Sur cette affaire, je n'ai accepté de faire aucun commentaire dans la presse et j'ai refusé toutes les demandes d'interview par les media audiovisuels. Même si je ne le voulais pas, je suis maintenant forcé de sortir de ma réserve et de me défendre publiquement contre les accusations de M. Courtillot. La "note added in proof" dont vous parle M. Courtillot a été soumise normalement pour approbation au rédacteur d'EPSL (editor en anglais), M. Rob van de Hilst du MIT, comme le demande classiquement l'éditeur Elsevier (publisher) lorsqu'il envoie les épreuves d'un article à son auteur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous la copie de mon dernier échange à ce sujet avec M. van der Hilst qui explique clairement que je n'ai absolument rien à me reprocher. M. van der Hilst écrit lui-même "INDEED, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING IN ASKING MY APPROVAL.". Le fait que ma "note added in proof" ait été incluse dans la version sous presse de notre Commentaire est simplement dû à une erreur technique de l'éditeur Elsevier. Il est évidemment IMPOSSIBLE pour un auteur de modifier lui-même quoi que ce soit sur le site web d'Elsevier ! La meilleure preuve que cette fameuse note a été CRUCIALE pour clarifier l'origine des données utilisées par M. Courtillot est que justement le rédacteur, M. van der Hilst, a finalement décidé de la publier in extenso pour expliquer aux lecteurs son importance (sa note éditoriale complète est copiée plus bas). M. van der Hilst écrit ainsi "Bard and Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in Courtillot et al. (2008). and Courtillot et al. (2007)..." "instead of global, annual means they are seasonal estimates from land regions north of 20°N. With access to the correct data files readers can form their own opinion on the analysis of and conclusions by Courtillot et al. (2007)." Il aura donc fallu une année (voire plus, depuis Le Mouël et al. 2005 EPSL) et de nombreux courriers et publications, pour que l'on sache enfin quelles sont les températures représentées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005). La réalité est que la courbe de température utilisée par Courtillot & Le Mouël provient d'un calcul de moyenne régionale et saisonnière (Briffa et al. JGR 2001) fondé sur les séries de températures de Jones et al. (1999 Rev. Geophys.). Le fichier cité par Courtillot et al. (2007) n'est donc pas un de ceux distribués par M. Philip D. Jones (University of East Anglia & Hadley Center), ni même tiré directement de l'article de Jones et al. (1999). La citation correcte aurait dû être l'article de Briffa et al. (2001) dont Jones est coauteur. Ceci étant dit, le problème CRUCIAL est qu'il ne s'agit pas de moyenne annuelle mondiale (Tglobe) comme l'ont écrit Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005), mais en fait de données régionales ET saisonnières (latitudes >20°N ET seulement sur les continents ET seulement pendant la saison chaude d'Avril à Septembre). Les courbes de la température moyenne annuelle mondiale (de MM. Phil Jones d'UEA ou de Jim Hansen de la NASA) ne présentent pas de corrélation marquée avec l'éclairement solaire et les indices géomagnétiques, en particulier au niveau des années 70 (voir la Figure 1 de notre Commentaire publié par EPSL qui représente la VERITABLE courbe de température globale distribuée par M. Phil Jones). Pour ce qui concerne les données d'irradiance solaire totale, les lecteurs d'EPSL sont maintenant pleinement informés du fait que les données utilisées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) NE sont PAS des données d'irradiance totale (Solanki 2002), mais seulement de la petite composante ultraviolette (Tobiska 2001). Dans leur Réponse publiée par EPSL, M. Courtillot et ses collègues accompagnent la nouvelle citation d'une note très surprenante (page 2, colonne 1): "(Tobiska, 2001; note that in Le Mouël et al., (2005), this data set was erroneously attributed to Solanki, 2002, although resulting changes are negligible)". Dans leurs deux articles Le Mouël et al. (2005) et Courtillot et al. (2007) auraient donc fait la même erreur de citation (Solanki 2002 au lieu de Tobiska 2001). Le problème est que justement les changements qui en résultent NE sont PAS du tout négligeables. Si Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) avaient effectivement utilisé Solanki (2002), ils auraient inévitablement représenté la courbe d'irradiance S(t) sur tout le 20e siècle car leur figure est focalisée sur tout ce siècle et que l'analyse de Solanki (2002) porte précisément sur TOUT le 20e siècle. Pour que l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki n'entraîne que des changements négligeables, comme ils l'écrivent, il faudrait que ces auteurs tronquent délibérément la courbe de Solanki pour n'en montrer que la moitié (les derniers 50 ans). C'est une accusation grave que je ne fais bien évidemment pas. Par conséquent, l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki (2002) devant être faite pour tout le 20e siècle, ceci entraîne des changements importants comme les lecteurs de notre Commentaire peuvent le constater (voir la Figure 1 qui représente la VERITABLE courbe d'irradiance solaire totale distribuée par M. S. Solanki pour TOUT le 20e siècle). En particulier, il apparaît clairement que les deux courbes géomagnétiques ESK et SIT proposées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) sont en DESACCORD FLAGRANT vers les années 70 avec les VERITABLES courbes de la température moyenne annuelle mondiale et de l'irradiance solaire totale (dans notre Commentaire, nous soulignons au passage que l'index géomagnétique AA est en bien meilleur accord, fait connu et publié depuis dix ans, e.g. Cliver et al. 1998 GRL). Monsieur Courtillot n'apporte aucune réponse à ces nombreux problèmes. Par ailleurs, il est navrant de constater que dans ses conférences publiques récentes (voir celle donnée lors du 125e anniversaire de l'ESPCI avec fichier powerpoint disponible sur le site web http://www.espci.fr/actu/espci125/pgm0011.htm ), M. Courtillot continue encore de montrer le même diagramme erroné, avec une courbe de température "Tglobe" qui n'est pas une courbe de moyenne annuelle mondiale de la température et une courbe "S(t)" qui n'est pas une courbe d'irradiance solaire totale. De plus, M. Courtillot montre encore cette courbe sur 50 ans seulement, alors même qu'il a pleinement connaissance de travaux qui donnent l'irradiance sur le tout le 20e siècle (Solanki 2002, article qu'il a lui-même cité depuis 2005). Je vous prie de croire, Chers Collègues, à l'assurance de mes sentiments respectueux et dévoués. Edouard Bard ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [4]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- ************************************************** De : Vincent Courtillot [courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr] Envoyé : vendredi 11 janvier 2008 12:13 À : MALAUSSENA Béatrice Cc : lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr; fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr; gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr; zerbib@ipgp.jussieu.fr; dyon@ipgp.jussieu.fr; catherine.brechignac@lac.u-psud.fr; catherine.brechignac@cnrs-dir.fr; J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr; jules.hoffmann@academie-sciences.fr; COURTOIS Gérard; laurentjoffrin@yahoo.fr; smarchand@lefigaro.fr; pgillet@geologie.ens-lyon.fr; philippe.gillet@recherche.gouv.fr Objet : Droit de réponse Importance : Haute Madame, étant donné le contenu du message que j'ai reçu de vous hier, je préfère continuer notre échange en en gardant des traces écrites et en le communicant à des tiers en tant que de besoin, en cas de suites juridiques. Un résumé sans doute un peu simplifié mais me semble t'il non faux de notre dernière conversation et de votre message sur ma boite vocale est le suivant. "Votre journaliste ne m'a pas calomnié; il a simplement retranscrit des accusations formulées dans une publication scientifique. En revanche, ma réponse vous poserait des problèmes juridiques et vous auriez des amendements à m'y faire apporter." Je vous demande tout simplement de me renvoyer mon texte avec les modifications qui vous paraissent nécessaires en rouge, naturellement maintenues à leur minimum, puisqu'il s'agit d'une lettre que j'écris et dont j'endosse la responsabilité, avec toute la force que me donne l'évident droit de réponse (pas un lecteur que j'ai rencontré ne l'a nié, quelque soir par ailleurs la réalité du fond) que vous me devez et que Gérard Courtois a reconnu a plusieurs reprises depuis le 21 décembre dernier (tout cela traîne de façon étonnante...). En ce qui concerne vos échanges avec M. Foucart tels que vous me les rapportez dans le message vocal (que j'ai conservé), juste deux commentaires: 1) vous me dites que le fond du débat entre nous deux est scientifique. M. Foucart est un journaliste pas un scientifique (ce sont deux métiers différents, a priori également estimables). Seuls les propos qu'il peut valablement citer avec leurs sources provenant de scientifiques qui en portent alors la responsabilité sont des débats scientifiques. 2) Vous me dites que M. Foucart a tout fait pour me joindre. Il est exact (je l'ai vérifié) qu'il a téléphoné à M. Dyon à l'IPGP, une demi-heure après que je sois rentré chez moi victime d'une grippe qui m'a tenu au lit trois jours avec 38°5. Une fois guéri, je suis passé à la garde de mes enfants et petits enfants qui étaient balayés par le virus. Rien de grave et nombreux sont ceux qui y sont passés à Noël. Donc j'étais réellement souffrant (et pas entre guillements) ce soir là. Mais je n'ai fait barrage à aucune demande qui m'aurait été faite: mon numéro de téléphone est public, dans les pages planches du bottin, pas sur liste rouge, il était facile de m'appeler chez moi. Je n'ai reçu aucun coup de téléphone de M. Foucart, ni d'ailleurs d'aucun des autres journalistes. Et faire son travail en l'occurence, alors que rien ne justifiait l'urgence de la publication de ce sujet, c'était attendre un ou deux jours et faire l'effort de me téléphoner et d'avoir mon témoignage. L'effort fait s'est limité à ce coup de fil à l'IPGP... J'ai eu la possibilité de démontrer hier pendant deux heures devant un auditoire scientifique de plus de 150 personnes que non seulement les accusations portées contre nous, notamment par votre journaliste, étaient purement et simplement sans fondement, mais que de plus les critiques scientifiques formulées par Edouard Bard et Gilles Delaygue étaient pour l'essentiel fausses ou fondées sur des témoignages faux que leur avaient fourni certains de leurs collègues. Nos conclusions scientifiques restent donc dans leur totalité. mais ceci est la partie scientifique et ce qui m'intéresse en ce qui vous concerne c'est de faire savoir à vos lecteurs que les allégations de M. Foucart dans l'article incriminé étaient fausses, et j'ai le droit de le faire et rapidement et sans censure! Dans ce séminaire hier, étaient présentes de très nombreuses personnes qui pourront porter témoignage. C'est le cas de l'ancienne directrice de la recherche, Mme Giacobino, de la présidente du CNRS Madame Catherine Bréchignac qui m'a publiquement assuré de son soutien et m'a assuré qu'elle était totalement convaincue par ma démonstration (sa compétence scientifique ne devrait pas être trop inférieure à celle de M. Foucart). Etaient également présents un journaliste de l'AFP et un journaliste de Science et Avenir. Cette conférence, comme toutes celles de l'IPGP, sera bientot disponible sur cd et intranet. Mardi prochain, je suis invité par le président de l'académie des sciences à exposer pendant 20mn l'ensemble de nos arguments. Je pense que le résultat sera le même qu'hier à l'IPGP. A cette occasion, puisqu'aucune n'est encore sortie, je remettrai à l'ensemble des académiciens une copie des trois lettres de droit de réponse envoyées aux journaux, dont le vôtre. J'aurais préféré qu'elles soient publiées avant cette date (je note que ni Libération ni le Figaro ne m'ont à ce jour donné la moindre indication sur la publication de mes droits de réponse; le Monde aura pour l'instant été le plus réactif. Je mets en copie les trois personnes à qui j'ai originellement envoyé mon droit de réponse dans ces trois journaux). J'attends donc la version amendée que vous souhaitez me voir accepter. Sincèrement, VC PS J'ai eu copie, comme M. Foucart l'évoquait, d'une réponse qu'il a fournie à un de mes amis qui lui avait écrit; je la reproduis ci dessous. Je ne souhaite y relever qu'une seule phrase: "Le blog RealClimate cité dans l'article n'est que la façade d'une polémique qui se joue dans une revue savante, EPSL en l'occurrence. " Cette présentation est inexacte. L'échange dans EPSL est un échange scientifique, sans polémique et surtout sans diffamation. Il est cependant désormais établi que, contrairement aux règles déontologiques, la note de M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire critique. Le rédacteur de la revue vient de nous envoyer copie de l'éditorial qu'il va faire publier en en-tête de nos deux articles dès la publication papier (qui fait autorité et doit avoir lieu très prochainement). Je vous joins également copie de cet éditorial. La ligne jaune est celle qui sépare le débat scientifique de la diffamation. La diffamation n'apparait pas dans EPSL mais dans le blog Real Climate et elle est reprise activement, sous leur signature et non pas seulement en citation entre guillements) par les journalistes. Là est la faute juridiquement répréhensible qu'ils ont commise. Là est la base de mon droit de réponse. La journaliste neutre et semblable au lecteur de base du Monde que vous m'avez dit être doit facilement s'en convaincre si elle est impartiale. ************************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:44:17 -0500 From: Rob van der Hilst Organization: MIT-EAPS To: Edouard BARD Subject: Re: ESPL comment & reply Dear Edouard, a very quick response - I cannot do anything until I hear from Elsevier's production office that changes can or cannot be made. But I want to avoid misunderstandings between us. I do not ACCUSE you of adding material and hide it from me - indeed, you did the right thing in asking my approval. However, if you now go on line and check your "comment" you will see that it does have the 'note added in proof'. So by returning the proofs with the addition it did make it to the public domain REGARDLESS of me approving it or not. The EPSL production staff should have picked up on this. So I am not pointing fingers here - I just have to deal with an unfortunate situation in which a significant addition to an already accepted text may make it into the literature even if the other party has no chance to repond or clarify the issue. OK? Cheers, Rob ************************************************** Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:27:37 +0100 To: Rob van der Hilst From: Edouard BARD Subject: ESPL comment & reply Dear Rob, >In principle, after approval of a 'comment' the other party is given the opportunity to respond, and approval of the 'reply' closes the process. To avoid going-back-and-forth, in my view the material should not appear on line until after approval of the corrected proofs. I agree. >In this case you added material to the 'comment' after seeing the 'reply', and without my consent. I disagree with your accusation. I did NOT try to add anything and hide it from you. Indeed, I immediately sent an email to you in order to propose our 'note added in proof'. I did this because I knew very well that such a note could not be published without your consent (during 4 years I also served EPSL). Indeed, the Elsevier message accompanying the uncorrected proofs is very clear on this issue "Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the Editor." This was exactly the purpose of my email to you. >In my view the sole purpose of your addition is - or, at least, should be - > to help clarify an important issue for the readers. This is precisely my goal. >(NB I am sure you realize that your 'note added in proof' could be perceived by readers as an accusation that Courtillot et al are not honest about the source of the data, in particulare related to the Tglobe file, and that would be quite a serious matter.) I am open for revision of the note if you think it could be misinterpreted. Whatever the reason for the discrepancy, it is important that the reader can identify exactly the source of these important data (published paper or valid URL). This is clearly a problem with many source of data cited by Courtillot et al (and Le Mouel et al.). For example the (flawed) TSI SOLAR2000 curve now cited in the Reply by Courtillot et al. should be accompanied by its URL and/or its reference (Tobiska 2001). It is even worse for the Tglobe curve which source is still completely unclear: it does not correspond to the cited reference and the code file cited in the Reply is not available. As previously stated, it is even possible to see that it does not correspond to the cited Tglobe curve just by looking at their shapes (see Fig. 1 of our Comment that provides the two very similar Tglobe curves developed at UEA by the group of Phil Jones and at NASA by the group of Jim Hansen). If you compare these two Tglobe curves with the one represented on Fig. 3 of Courtillot et al. (2007), you will immediately see that there are important differences in the shape of the maximum in the 40s, the pause (or minimum) in the 60-70s and the phase lag in the 30s. Comparison with the Tglobe curve is obviously central to all climate-related discussions in these papers. Best regards, Edouard ************************************************** Editorial Note The paper entitled "Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?" published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Courtillot et al., 2007) triggered a "comment" (Bard and Delaygue, 2008) and a "reply" (Courtillot et al, 2008). These publications, and EPSL's handling of the "comment" and "reply" (hereinafter C08), have received significant attention in electronic and printed news media. In a "comment-reply" exchange, standard editorial policy gives the responder the last word and requires that the "comment" is not changed once accepted by the Editor and replied to by the authors whose work is being criticized. In this case, Bard and Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in C08 and Courtillot et al. (2007) after the (accepted) "comment" and "reply" had appeared online (but before they received galley proofs). They pointed this out in a "Note added in Proof" to their "comment". Being against EPSL's policy this modification was disapproved (and removed). However, properly reporting data is an essential aspect of scientific communication in that it enables independent evaluations of the analysis presented by authors. Therefore, Courtillot et al. were asked to clarify (in C08) the source of the data used. For full disclosure, the note by Bard and Delaygue is reproduced here: "In their Response to our Comment, Courtillot et al. state that for the total irradiance curve S(t) they had used the SOLAR2000 model product by Tobiska (2001) instead of the century-long record by Solanki (2002) cited in their original paper (Courtillot et al. 2007). However, the SOLAR2000 model is restricted to the UV component and their total solar irradiance is severely flawed as pointed out by Lean (2002). For the global temperature Tglobe curve cited from Jones et al. (1999) in Courtillot et al. (2007), these authors now state in their response that they had used the following data file: monthly_land_and_ocean_90S_90N_df_1901-2001mean_dat.txt. We were unable to find this file even by contacting its putative author who specifically stated to us that it is not one of his files (Dr. Philip D. Jones, written communication dated Oct. 23, 2007)." In response, Courtillot et al. (2007) provided two modifications (in italics) in C08: "The solar irradiance daily time series we used is that from the SOLAR2000 research grade model upgraded to v1.23A (file Five_cycle_v1_23a.txt dated 23 April 2003) which covers the time period from 14 February 1947 to 31 May 2002 (Tobiska, 2001; note that in Le Mouël et al, 2005, this data set was erroneously attributed to Solanki, 2002, although resulting changes are negligible)." and "The temperature series we actually used is obtained from Briffa et al. (2001) - specifically, column 7 of [5]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001 jgr3.txt , that is, years 1871 to 1997 - which is, originally, from Jones et al (1999) as quoted. All we did was to average it over an 11yr sliding window." The ftp link shows that the temperatures used are indeed from Jones and co-workers, but instead of global, annual means they are seasonal estimates from land regions north of 20°N. With access to the correct data files readers can form their own opinion on the analysis of and conclusions by Courtillot et al. (2007). Robert D. van der Hilst Editor for Earth and Planetary Science Letters Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., 'Comment on "Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?" by V. Courtillot, Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, A. Genevey', Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 265, 302-307, 2008 Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328-339, 2007 Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., 'Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 265, 302-307, 2008 -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [6]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [7]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Attention new mail address : jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin Bâtiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE tél : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682 - Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3ème étage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr, 01 44 27 49 92 - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13, fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, e-mail : jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4152. 2008-01-15 13:17:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue Jan 15 13:17:19 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Differences in our series (GISS/HadCRUT3) to: James Hansen Jim, Gavin, Thanks for the summary about 2007. We're saying much the same things about recent temps, and probably when it comes to those idiots saying global warming is stopping - in some recent RC and CA threads. Gavin has gone to town on this with 6,7, 8 year trends etc. What I wanted to touch base on is the issue in this figure I got yesterday. This is more of the same. You both attribute the differences to your extrapolation over the Arctic (as does Stefan). I've gone along with this, but have you produced an NH series excluding the Arctic ? Do these agree better? I reviewed a paper from NCDC (Tom Smith et al) about issues with recent SSTs and the greater number of buoy type data since the late-90s (now about 70%) cf ships. The paper shows ships are very slightly warmer cf buoys (~0.1-0.2 for all SST). I don't think they have implemented an adjustment for this yet, but if done it would raise global T by about 0.1 for the recent few years. The paper should be out in J. Climate soon. The HC folks are not including SST data appearing in the Arctic for regions where their climatology (61-90) includes years which had some sea ice. I take it you and NCDC are not including Arctic SST data where the climatology isn't correct? You get big positive anomalies if you do. Some day we will have to solve both these issues. Both are difficult, especially the latter! Cheers Phil At 21:39 14/01/2008, you wrote: To be removed from Jim Hansen's e-mail list respond with REMOVE as subject Discussion of 2007 GISS global temperature analysis is posted at Solar and Southern Oscillations [1]http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080114_GISTEMP.pdf Jim Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 845. 2008-01-15 14:49:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov date: Tue Jan 15 14:49:24 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Edouard Bard to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Good triumphs over bad - eventually! It does take a long time though! Maybe Ray P. wants to do something. He is more up to speed on all this - and reads French! Cheers Phil At 14:33 15/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Phil, thanks for sending on, I've sent to Ray P. The Passoti piece is remarkably bad for a Science "news" piece, it would be worth discussing this w/ the editor, Donald Kennedy who is quite reasonable, and probably a bit embarrassed by this. My french isn't great, but I could see there was something also about the Moberg reconstructions, Courtilot obviously trying to use that to arge that the recent warming isn't anomalous (even though the Moberg recon actually supports that it is). I'll need to read over all of this and try to digest when I have a chance later today. Keep up the good fight, the attacks are getting more and more desparate as the contrarians are increasingly losing the battle (both scientifically, and in the public sphere). one thing I've learned is that the best way to deal w/ these attacks is just to go on doing good science, something I learned from Ben... talk to you later, mike Well, the Phil Jones wrote: Gavin, Mike, Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert. Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad. One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science. I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is poor at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard. See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well ! I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows who and why it appoints its fellows! In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were awfiul. Cheers Phil From: Jean Jouzel [1] Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail ( [2]http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for your help in getting some support to Edouard, which is really needed. Certainly one thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20°N Briffa et al. data set as global. May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know .... Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you With my best Jean At 15:29 +0000 14/01/08, Phil Jones wrote: Jean, Will you be going to the EGU in Vienna this April? This disagreement with Courtillot seems to be getting out of hand. Edouard isn't having a great time at the moment. The data Courtillot used is not on the CRU web site. We did produce it, but for a paper Keith worked on in 2002. Courtillot's global is CRU data, but not the globe - it is land north of 20N and April to September only! The French Academy is looking a bit of a laughing stock! I did meet Courtillot in March last year - he was courteous, but he should read the literature! Cheers Phil X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at arbois.cerege.fr Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:20:00 +0100 To: Phil Jones [3] From: Edouard BARD [4] Subject: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.4 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >Courtillot says he will soon publish two studies arguing that methods used to measure global T need to be revised. Wonder if these are the two that I rejected! Maybe one day he'll realise that there is oceanic data! Cheers Phil Hello Phil, These are indeed the papers submitted to EPSL. Courtillot has control on other journals and I'm sure he will manage to publish them somewhere else ... As you can read below, Courtillot accused me publicly of scientific misconduct in a written message sent in copy to the president of the Academy of Science, to the president of the CNRS and to the Director of the Cabinet of the Ministry of Higher Education and Research. According to Courtillot, my misconduct is that I have acted as a hacker, introducing a "note added in proof" in my EPSL paper without the editor and the publisher even knowing it ! Courtillot even requested the organization this week of a secret meeting at the Academy in order to expose the case (yes, you've read it correctly, this is officially called "un comité secret"). I am not a member of the Academy and nobody is there to defend my case. Hence, I was obliged to write this long email to explain my position to some academicians. I'm not really planning for sending soon something to Science as my next week will be hectic with this "inquisition" committee against me and the impact of the "droit de réponse" in newspaper(s). I am sure that Courtillot will even use Pasotti's poor paper against me during the audit of the case at the Academy. As I am the main author for the Comment, sending a rebuttal to Science may even be counterproductive. Do you plan to send something to Science about the fact that the Figure misrepresent Tglobe ? I'm quite depressed because this is taking a lot of my time and energy. Everybody at home is mad at me, children and wife, because I spend hours and days in the lab writing and checking emails and answering phone calls. Best wishes, Edouard Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:13:14 +0100 To: [5]bard@cerege.fr From: Edouard BARD [6] Subject: Accusations de M. Courtillot Destinataires: Madame la Présidente du CNRS, Monsieur le Président de l'Académie des Sciences, Monsieur le Directeur de Cabinet de Madame la Ministre de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Mesdames et Messieurs, Membres de l'Académie (incluant M. Courtillot). Chers Collègues, Je reviens à l'instant d'une tournée de conférences en Angleterre (Royal Geographical Society de Londres et Université de Cambridge). J'apprends avec stupeur que Monsieur Courtillot m'attaque personnellement et publiquement d'avoir eu un comportement contraire à l'éthique scientifique ("contrairement aux règles déontologiques, la note de M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire critique", cf. plus bas le message envoyé hier le 11 janvier et dont vous êtes destinataires). Cette accusation surprenante est totalement infondée. Je rappelle que dans mon Commentaire qui vient d'être publié par la revue Earth & Planetary Science Letters (EPSL, pdf attaché), je n'ai proféré aucune accusation à l'égard de M. Courtillot. J'évite justement d'avoir un ton polémique en me cantonnant à des discussions dans l'arène scientifique, par exemple mes interventions lors du colloque organisé par M. Courtillot à l'Académie des Sciences (conférence et débat disponibles sur le site internet de l'Académie: [7]http://www.academie-sciences.fr/conferences/seances_publiques/html/debat_13_03_07.htm [8]http://www.canalacademie.com/Modelisation-du-climat-et-role-du.html ou mes publications, notamment ce 'Commentaire' Bard & Delaygue (2008 EPSL). Sur cette affaire, je n'ai accepté de faire aucun commentaire dans la presse et j'ai refusé toutes les demandes d'interview par les media audiovisuels. Même si je ne le voulais pas, je suis maintenant forcé de sortir de ma réserve et de me défendre publiquement contre les accusations de M. Courtillot. La "note added in proof" dont vous parle M. Courtillot a été soumise normalement pour approbation au rédacteur d'EPSL (editor en anglais), M. Rob van de Hilst du MIT, comme le demande classiquement l'éditeur Elsevier (publisher) lorsqu'il envoie les épreuves d'un article à son auteur. Vous trouverez ci-dessous la copie de mon dernier échange à ce sujet avec M. van der Hilst qui explique clairement que je n'ai absolument rien à me reprocher. M. van der Hilst écrit lui-même "INDEED, YOU DID THE RIGHT THING IN ASKING MY APPROVAL.". Le fait que ma "note added in proof" ait été incluse dans la version sous presse de notre Commentaire est simplement dû à une erreur technique de l'éditeur Elsevier. Il est évidemment IMPOSSIBLE pour un auteur de modifier lui-même quoi que ce soit sur le site web d'Elsevier ! La meilleure preuve que cette fameuse note a été CRUCIALE pour clarifier l'origine des données utilisées par M. Courtillot est que justement le rédacteur, M. van der Hilst, a finalement décidé de la publier in extenso pour expliquer aux lecteurs son importance (sa note éditoriale complète est copiée plus bas). M. van der Hilst écrit ainsi "Bard and Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in Courtillot et al. (2008). and Courtillot et al. (2007)..." "instead of global, annual means they are seasonal estimates from land regions north of 20°N. With access to the correct data files readers can form their own opinion on the analysis of and conclusions by Courtillot et al. (2007)." Il aura donc fallu une année (voire plus, depuis Le Mouël et al. 2005 EPSL) et de nombreux courriers et publications, pour que l'on sache enfin quelles sont les températures représentées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005). La réalité est que la courbe de température utilisée par Courtillot & Le Mouël provient d'un calcul de moyenne régionale et saisonnière (Briffa et al. JGR 2001) fondé sur les séries de températures de Jones et al. (1999 Rev. Geophys.). Le fichier cité par Courtillot et al. (2007) n'est donc pas un de ceux distribués par M. Philip D. Jones (University of East Anglia & Hadley Center), ni même tiré directement de l'article de Jones et al. (1999). La citation correcte aurait dû être l'article de Briffa et al. (2001) dont Jones est coauteur. Ceci étant dit, le problème CRUCIAL est qu'il ne s'agit pas de moyenne annuelle mondiale (Tglobe) comme l'ont écrit Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005), mais en fait de données régionales ET saisonnières (latitudes >20°N ET seulement sur les continents ET seulement pendant la saison chaude d'Avril à Septembre). Les courbes de la température moyenne annuelle mondiale (de MM. Phil Jones d'UEA ou de Jim Hansen de la NASA) ne présentent pas de corrélation marquée avec l'éclairement solaire et les indices géomagnétiques, en particulier au niveau des années 70 (voir la Figure 1 de notre Commentaire publié par EPSL qui représente la VERITABLE courbe de température globale distribuée par M. Phil Jones). Pour ce qui concerne les données d'irradiance solaire totale, les lecteurs d'EPSL sont maintenant pleinement informés du fait que les données utilisées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) NE sont PAS des données d'irradiance totale (Solanki 2002), mais seulement de la petite composante ultraviolette (Tobiska 2001). Dans leur Réponse publiée par EPSL, M. Courtillot et ses collègues accompagnent la nouvelle citation d'une note très surprenante (page 2, colonne 1): "(Tobiska, 2001; note that in Le Mouël et al., (2005), this data set was erroneously attributed to Solanki, 2002, although resulting changes are negligible)". Dans leurs deux articles Le Mouël et al. (2005) et Courtillot et al. (2007) auraient donc fait la même erreur de citation (Solanki 2002 au lieu de Tobiska 2001). Le problème est que justement les changements qui en résultent NE sont PAS du tout négligeables. Si Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) avaient effectivement utilisé Solanki (2002), ils auraient inévitablement représenté la courbe d'irradiance S(t) sur tout le 20e siècle car leur figure est focalisée sur tout ce siècle et que l'analyse de Solanki (2002) porte précisément sur TOUT le 20e siècle. Pour que l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki n'entraîne que des changements négligeables, comme ils l'écrivent, il faudrait que ces auteurs tronquent délibérément la courbe de Solanki pour n'en montrer que la moitié (les derniers 50 ans). C'est une accusation grave que je ne fais bien évidemment pas. Par conséquent, l'utilisation de la courbe de Solanki (2002) devant être faite pour tout le 20e siècle, ceci entraîne des changements importants comme les lecteurs de notre Commentaire peuvent le constater (voir la Figure 1 qui représente la VERITABLE courbe d'irradiance solaire totale distribuée par M. S. Solanki pour TOUT le 20e siècle). En particulier, il apparaît clairement que les deux courbes géomagnétiques ESK et SIT proposées par Courtillot et al. (2007) et Le Mouël et al. (2005) sont en DESACCORD FLAGRANT vers les années 70 avec les VERITABLES courbes de la température moyenne annuelle mondiale et de l'irradiance solaire totale (dans notre Commentaire, nous soulignons au passage que l'index géomagnétique AA est en bien meilleur accord, fait connu et publié depuis dix ans, e.g. Cliver et al. 1998 GRL). Monsieur Courtillot n'apporte aucune réponse à ces nombreux problèmes. Par ailleurs, il est navrant de constater que dans ses conférences publiques récentes (voir celle donnée lors du 125e anniversaire de l'ESPCI avec fichier powerpoint disponible sur le site web [9]http://www.espci.fr/actu/espci125/pgm0011.htm ), M. Courtillot continue encore de montrer le même diagramme erroné, avec une courbe de température "Tglobe" qui n'est pas une courbe de moyenne annuelle mondiale de la température et une courbe "S(t)" qui n'est pas une courbe d'irradiance solaire totale. De plus, M. Courtillot montre encore cette courbe sur 50 ans seulement, alors même qu'il a pleinement connaissance de travaux qui donnent l'irradiance sur le tout le 20e siècle (Solanki 2002, article qu'il a lui-même cité depuis 2005). Je vous prie de croire, Chers Collègues, à l'assurance de mes sentiments respectueux et dévoués. Edouard Bard ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [10]bard@cerege.fr [11]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- ************************************************** De : Vincent Courtillot [[12]courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr] Envoyé : vendredi 11 janvier 2008 12:13 À : MALAUSSENA Béatrice Cc : [13]lemouel@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [14]fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [15]gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [16]zerbib@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [17]dyon@ipgp.jussieu.fr; [18]catherine.brechignac@lac.u-psud.fr; [19]catherine.brechignac@cnrs-dir.fr; [20]J.Hoffmann@ibmc.u-strasbg.fr; [21]jules.hoffmann@academie-sciences.fr; COURTOIS Gérard; [22]laurentjoffrin@yahoo.fr; [23]smarchand@lefigaro.fr; [24]pgillet@geologie.ens-lyon.fr; [25]philippe.gillet@recherche.gouv.fr Objet : Droit de réponse Importance : Haute Madame, étant donné le contenu du message que j'ai reçu de vous hier, je préfère continuer notre échange en en gardant des traces écrites et en le communicant à des tiers en tant que de besoin, en cas de suites juridiques. Un résumé sans doute un peu simplifié mais me semble t'il non faux de notre dernière conversation et de votre message sur ma boite vocale est le suivant. "Votre journaliste ne m'a pas calomnié; il a simplement retranscrit des accusations formulées dans une publication scientifique. En revanche, ma réponse vous poserait des problèmes juridiques et vous auriez des amendements à m'y faire apporter." Je vous demande tout simplement de me renvoyer mon texte avec les modifications qui vous paraissent nécessaires en rouge, naturellement maintenues à leur minimum, puisqu'il s'agit d'une lettre que j'écris et dont j'endosse la responsabilité, avec toute la force que me donne l'évident droit de réponse (pas un lecteur que j'ai rencontré ne l'a nié, quelque soir par ailleurs la réalité du fond) que vous me devez et que Gérard Courtois a reconnu a plusieurs reprises depuis le 21 décembre dernier (tout cela traîne de façon étonnante...). En ce qui concerne vos échanges avec M. Foucart tels que vous me les rapportez dans le message vocal (que j'ai conservé), juste deux commentaires: 1) vous me dites que le fond du débat entre nous deux est scientifique. M. Foucart est un journaliste pas un scientifique (ce sont deux métiers différents, a priori également estimables). Seuls les propos qu'il peut valablement citer avec leurs sources provenant de scientifiques qui en portent alors la responsabilité sont des débats scientifiques. 2) Vous me dites que M. Foucart a tout fait pour me joindre. Il est exact (je l'ai vérifié) qu'il a téléphoné à M. Dyon à l'IPGP, une demi-heure après que je sois rentré chez moi victime d'une grippe qui m'a tenu au lit trois jours avec 38°5. Une fois guéri, je suis passé à la garde de mes enfants et petits enfants qui étaient balayés par le virus. Rien de grave et nombreux sont ceux qui y sont passés à Noël. Donc j'étais réellement souffrant (et pas entre guillements) ce soir là. Mais je n'ai fait barrage à aucune demande qui m'aurait été faite: mon numéro de téléphone est public, dans les pages planches du bottin, pas sur liste rouge, il était facile de m'appeler chez moi. Je n'ai reçu aucun coup de téléphone de M. Foucart, ni d'ailleurs d'aucun des autres journalistes. Et faire son travail en l'occurence, alors que rien ne justifiait l'urgence de la publication de ce sujet, c'était attendre un ou deux jours et faire l'effort de me téléphoner et d'avoir mon témoignage. L'effort fait s'est limité à ce coup de fil à l'IPGP... J'ai eu la possibilité de démontrer hier pendant deux heures devant un auditoire scientifique de plus de 150 personnes que non seulement les accusations portées contre nous, notamment par votre journaliste, étaient purement et simplement sans fondement, mais que de plus les critiques scientifiques formulées par Edouard Bard et Gilles Delaygue étaient pour l'essentiel fausses ou fondées sur des témoignages faux que leur avaient fourni certains de leurs collègues. Nos conclusions scientifiques restent donc dans leur totalité. mais ceci est la partie scientifique et ce qui m'intéresse en ce qui vous concerne c'est de faire savoir à vos lecteurs que les allégations de M. Foucart dans l'article incriminé étaient fausses, et j'ai le droit de le faire et rapidement et sans censure! Dans ce séminaire hier, étaient présentes de très nombreuses personnes qui pourront porter témoignage. C'est le cas de l'ancienne directrice de la recherche, Mme Giacobino, de la présidente du CNRS Madame Catherine Bréchignac qui m'a publiquement assuré de son soutien et m'a assuré qu'elle était totalement convaincue par ma démonstration (sa compétence scientifique ne devrait pas être trop inférieure à celle de M. Foucart). Etaient également présents un journaliste de l'AFP et un journaliste de Science et Avenir. Cette conférence, comme toutes celles de l'IPGP, sera bientot disponible sur cd et intranet. Mardi prochain, je suis invité par le président de l'académie des sciences à exposer pendant 20mn l'ensemble de nos arguments. Je pense que le résultat sera le même qu'hier à l'IPGP. A cette occasion, puisqu'aucune n'est encore sortie, je remettrai à l'ensemble des académiciens une copie des trois lettres de droit de réponse envoyées aux journaux, dont le vôtre. J'aurais préféré qu'elles soient publiées avant cette date (je note que ni Libération ni le Figaro ne m'ont à ce jour donné la moindre indication sur la publication de mes droits de réponse; le Monde aura pour l'instant été le plus réactif. Je mets en copie les trois personnes à qui j'ai originellement envoyé mon droit de réponse dans ces trois journaux). J'attends donc la version amendée que vous souhaitez me voir accepter. Sincèrement, VC PS J'ai eu copie, comme M. Foucart l'évoquait, d'une réponse qu'il a fournie à un de mes amis qui lui avait écrit; je la reproduis ci dessous. Je ne souhaite y relever qu'une seule phrase: "Le blog RealClimate cité dans l'article n'est que la façade d'une polémique qui se joue dans une revue savante, EPSL en l'occurrence. " Cette présentation est inexacte. L'échange dans EPSL est un échange scientifique, sans polémique et surtout sans diffamation. Il est cependant désormais établi que, contrairement aux règles déontologiques, la note de M. Bard a été envoyée APRES acceptation de son commentaire critique. Le rédacteur de la revue vient de nous envoyer copie de l'éditorial qu'il va faire publier en en-tête de nos deux articles dès la publication papier (qui fait autorité et doit avoir lieu très prochainement). Je vous joins également copie de cet éditorial. La ligne jaune est celle qui sépare le débat scientifique de la diffamation. La diffamation n'apparait pas dans EPSL mais dans le blog Real Climate et elle est reprise activement, sous leur signature et non pas seulement en citation entre guillements) par les journalistes. Là est la faute juridiquement répréhensible qu'ils ont commise. Là est la base de mon droit de réponse. La journaliste neutre et semblable au lecteur de base du Monde que vous m'avez dit être doit facilement s'en convaincre si elle est impartiale. ************************************************** Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:44:17 -0500 From: Rob van der Hilst [26] Organization: MIT-EAPS To: Edouard BARD [27] Subject: Re: ESPL comment & reply Dear Edouard, a very quick response - I cannot do anything until I hear from Elsevier's production office that changes can or cannot be made. But I want to avoid misunderstandings between us. I do not ACCUSE you of adding material and hide it from me - indeed, you did the right thing in asking my approval. However, if you now go on line and check your "comment" you will see that it does have the 'note added in proof'. So by returning the proofs with the addition it did make it to the public domain REGARDLESS of me approving it or not. The EPSL production staff should have picked up on this. So I am not pointing fingers here - I just have to deal with an unfortunate situation in which a significant addition to an already accepted text may make it into the literature even if the other party has no chance to repond or clarify the issue. OK? Cheers, Rob ************************************************** Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 15:27:37 +0100 To: Rob van der Hilst [28] From: Edouard BARD [29] Subject: ESPL comment & reply Dear Rob, >In principle, after approval of a 'comment' the other party is given the opportunity to respond, and approval of the 'reply' closes the process. To avoid going-back-and-forth, in my view the material should not appear on line until after approval of the corrected proofs. I agree. >In this case you added material to the 'comment' after seeing the 'reply', and without my consent. I disagree with your accusation. I did NOT try to add anything and hide it from you. Indeed, I immediately sent an email to you in order to propose our 'note added in proof'. I did this because I knew very well that such a note could not be published without your consent (during 4 years I also served EPSL). Indeed, the Elsevier message accompanying the uncorrected proofs is very clear on this issue "Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the Editor." This was exactly the purpose of my email to you. >In my view the sole purpose of your addition is - or, at least, should be - > to help clarify an important issue for the readers. This is precisely my goal. >(NB I am sure you realize that your 'note added in proof' could be perceived by readers as an accusation that Courtillot et al are not honest about the source of the data, in particulare related to the Tglobe file, and that would be quite a serious matter.) I am open for revision of the note if you think it could be misinterpreted. Whatever the reason for the discrepancy, it is important that the reader can identify exactly the source of these important data (published paper or valid URL). This is clearly a problem with many source of data cited by Courtillot et al (and Le Mouel et al.). For example the (flawed) TSI SOLAR2000 curve now cited in the Reply by Courtillot et al. should be accompanied by its URL and/or its reference (Tobiska 2001). It is even worse for the Tglobe curve which source is still completely unclear: it does not correspond to the cited reference and the code file cited in the Reply is not available. As previously stated, it is even possible to see that it does not correspond to the cited Tglobe curve just by looking at their shapes (see Fig. 1 of our Comment that provides the two very similar Tglobe curves developed at UEA by the group of Phil Jones and at NASA by the group of Jim Hansen). If you compare these two Tglobe curves with the one represented on Fig. 3 of Courtillot et al. (2007), you will immediately see that there are important differences in the shape of the maximum in the 40s, the pause (or minimum) in the 60-70s and the phase lag in the 30s. Comparison with the Tglobe curve is obviously central to all climate-related discussions in these papers. Best regards, Edouard ************************************************** Editorial Note The paper entitled "Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?" published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters (Courtillot et al., 2007) triggered a "comment" (Bard and Delaygue, 2008) and a "reply" (Courtillot et al, 2008). These publications, and EPSL's handling of the "comment" and "reply" (hereinafter C08), have received significant attention in electronic and printed news media. In a "comment-reply" exchange, standard editorial policy gives the responder the last word and requires that the "comment" is not changed once accepted by the Editor and replied to by the authors whose work is being criticized. In this case, Bard and Delaygue noticed inconsistencies in the citation of data sources in C08 and Courtillot et al. (2007) after the (accepted) "comment" and "reply" had appeared online (but before they received galley proofs). They pointed this out in a "Note added in Proof" to their "comment". Being against EPSL's policy this modification was disapproved (and removed). However, properly reporting data is an essential aspect of scientific communication in that it enables independent evaluations of the analysis presented by authors. Therefore, Courtillot et al. were asked to clarify (in C08) the source of the data used. For full disclosure, the note by Bard and Delaygue is reproduced here: "In their Response to our Comment, Courtillot et al. state that for the total irradiance curve S(t) they had used the SOLAR2000 model product by Tobiska (2001) instead of the century-long record by Solanki (2002) cited in their original paper (Courtillot et al. 2007). However, the SOLAR2000 model is restricted to the UV component and their total solar irradiance is severely flawed as pointed out by Lean (2002). For the global temperature Tglobe curve cited from Jones et al. (1999) in Courtillot et al. (2007), these authors now state in their response that they had used the following data file: monthly_land_and_ocean_90S_90N_df_1901-2001mean_dat.txt. We were unable to find this file even by contacting its putative author who specifically stated to us that it is not one of his files (Dr. Philip D. Jones, written communication dated Oct. 23, 2007)." In response, Courtillot et al. (2007) provided two modifications (in italics) in C08: "The solar irradiance daily time series we used is that from the SOLAR2000 research grade model upgraded to v1.23A (file Five_cycle_v1_23a.txt dated 23 April 2003) which covers the time period from 14 February 1947 to 31 May 2002 (Tobiska, 2001; note that in Le Mouël et al, 2005, this data set was erroneously attributed to Solanki, 2002, although resulting changes are negligible)." and "The temperature series we actually used is obtained from Briffa et al. (2001) - specifically, column 7 of [30]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa200 1jgr3.txt , that is, years 1871 to 1997 - which is, originally, from Jones et al (1999) as quoted. All we did was to average it over an 11yr sliding window." The ftp link shows that the temperatures used are indeed from Jones and co-workers, but instead of global, annual means they are seasonal estimates from land regions north of 20°N. With access to the correct data files readers can form their own opinion on the analysis of and conclusions by Courtillot et al. (2007). Robert D. van der Hilst Editor for Earth and Planetary Science Letters Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., 'Comment on "Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?" by V. Courtillot, Y. Gallet, J.-L. Le Mouël, F. Fluteau, A. Genevey', Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 265, 302-307, 2008 Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., Are there connections between the Earth's magnetic field and climate?, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 253, 328-339, 2007 Courtillot, V., Gallet, Y., Le Mouël, J.-L., Fluteau, F., and Genevey, A., 'Response to comment on "Are there connections between Earth's magnetic field and climate" by Bard, E., and Delaygue, G., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 265, 302-307, 2008 -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [31]bard@cerege.fr [32]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [33]bard@cerege.fr [34]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [35]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Attention new mail address : [36]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr Directeur de l'Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin Bâtiment d'Alembert, 5 Boulevard d'Alembert, 78280 Guyancourt, FRANCE tél : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 16, fax : 33 (0) 1 39 25 58 22, Portable : 33 (0) 684759682 - Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Tour 45-46, 3ème étage, 303, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, e-mail : [37]jzipsl@ipsl.jussieu.fr, 01 44 27 49 92 - Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, UMR CEA-CNRS-UVSQ CE Saclay, Orme des Merisiers, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, tél : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 13, fax : 33 (0) 1 69 08 77 16, Bt 701, Pièce 9a, e-mail : [38]jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr 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 [39]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: [40]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [41]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4845. 2008-01-15 15:42:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ian Harris" date: Tue Jan 15 15:42:24 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: CRU 2003-2006 data to: Rita Wania Dear Rita, sorry for such a slow response... I must have overlooked your email in December. Ian Harris (Harry) has been working on this, so I've cc'd this to him so that he can give you a precise answer. Best regards Tim At 16:15 03/12/2007, you wrote: Hi Tim, I'm working with Colin Prentice and we wondered if you could tell us about the progress being made at extending the CRU time series data beyond 2002? Do you know when they are going to be available? It would be great if you could give me any further information on this topic. with kind regards, Rita -- Rita Wania, Dept. of Earth Sciences Let the train (and boat and University of Bristol, UK bus!) take the strain: +44 (0) 117 33 15158 [1]www.seat61.com 3306. 2008-01-15 20:04:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: John.Lanzante@noaa.gov, Melissa Free , Peter Thorne , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Steve Klein , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:04:09 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Updated Figures to: Susan Solomon Dear folks, Once again, thanks for all your help with the Figures for our paper. Let me briefly summarize the current "state of play" with regard to the Figures. Figure 1: One candidate for Figure 1 is the Figure I distributed last night, which tried to illustrate how differences in the autocorrelation structure of the regression residuals (basically red noise and white noise) affect the estimate of the standard error of a linear trend. This Figure did not meet with unanimous approval. Some of you liked it, some of you didn't. I am currently trying to improve it. I hope to finalize the Figure tomorrow. Figure 2: Susan suggested that the Figure showing tropical T2LT changes in five realizations of the MRI model's 20c3m experiment (as well as in the MRI ensemble mean) would serve well as Figure 2. She also proposed some modifications to this Figure, which I have not yet implemented. I will finish this Figure tomorrow. Figure 3: This is the two-panel Figure (appended) which attempts to visually illustrate differences between the "Santer et al. trend comparison" (panel A) and the "Douglass et al. trend comparison" (panel B). Steve Sherwood's keen eyes spotted an error in the first version of this Figure. I had incorrectly plotted trend results for T2 (not T2LT) in panel A, and T2LT in panel B. This error has been corrected. I've also incorporated a number of comments from Tom Wigley regarding the legend. Figure 4: This is now a three-panel Figure (appended), which shows the normalized trend difference for our "paired trends" test. Panel A gives results (in the form of a histogram) for tests of the T2LT trend in UAH against T2LT trends in 49 individual 20c3m realizations. Panel B provides similar results for paired trend tests involving RSS T2LT data. In the previous version of this Figure, the UAH- and RSS_based histograms were plotted together in the same panel, which made things a little messy. At Karl's suggestion, the numerator of the normalized trend difference statistic (d) is now "model trend minus observed trend" (not "observed minus model"), which is why the UAH-based distribution of d is positively skewed. Panel C shows the results of "Intra-ensemble" tests. At John Lanzante's suggestion, these are now shown as a histogram rather than in the form of colored symbols for individual models. Note that the histogram in panel C is now symmetrical about zero. I've followed the advice that many of you gave me, and performed the "intra-ensemble" tests using all (non-identical) trend pairs in any individual model's ensemble of 20c3m realizations - i.e., b(1) vs. b(2), b(1) vs. b(3), b(2) vs. b(3), b(2) vs. b(1), etc. This yields a total of 124 tests. Figure 4 clearly shows that the values of the normalized trend difference obtained through internal variability alone are comparable in size to the actual values of d obtained in "model-vs-RSS" tests. Even the "model-vs-UAH" d results show substantial overlap with the "intra-ensemble" values of d. Figure 5: John Lanzante and Tom Wigley made a number of suggestions about "decluttering" this Figure (appended), which shows the results of trend tests performed with synthetically-generated data. I have tried to implement all of their suggestions. I think the Figure is now much clearer. With regard to Figure 5, John, Tom, Karl, and Steve had a number of suggestions about the "positive bias" issue. Today, with help from Karl, I performed a number of sensitivity tests. All of my comments now pertain to rejection rate results obtained using the version of our "paired trends" test that incorporates adjustment of the standard error for temporal autocorrelation effects. John had suggested using a square root transformation to address the inherently skewed nature of the rejection rate distributions. This transformation does indeed shift the mean of the empirically-determined rejection rate distributions closer to their theoretical expectation values. Given this result, Karl suggested that we should also look at cube root (and higher-order root) transformations. As expected, the higher the order of the root transformation, the greater the shift towards the theoretical values. This is encouraging, although I still think we have the non-trivial problem of explaining and justifying any distribution transformation we decide to use (I can already hear Fred Singer saying "There goes Santer, manipulating data yet again!"). The current version of Figure 5 does NOT show "transformed" results. A number of other factors also influence the rejection rates obtained with synthetic data. These include: a) The selected value of the AR-1 coefficient in the autoregressive model; b) The stipulated amplitude of the noise in the AR-1 model; c) Whether the actual value of r{1} (the lag-1 autocorrelation) that is determined from each synthetic time series is estimated from the raw anomalies of that time series or from the regression residuals. Until now, I've been estimating r{1} from the regression residuals, not from the raw anomaly data. In the results described in our 2000 JGR paper, Doug Nychka's experiments with synthetic data provided some justification for this choice. What I learned today, however, is that estimation of r{1} from the raw anomaly data yields rejection rates that are very close to the theoretical expectation values, even without any transformation of the rejection rate distributions. This makes sense, since any trend in the synthetic time series will inflate the value of r{1}, decrease the effective sample size n{e}, and thereby inflate the standard error of the trend, making it more difficult to reject the null hypothesis, and lowering rejection rates. A large randomly-generated trend will also make it easier to reject the null hypothesis, so there must be some competitive effects here. Does this mean that we should repeat all trend tests (both model-vs-observed and model-vs-model) with r{1} estimated from raw data? I don't know. I'm hoping that Tom will be able to clarify this point with Doug Nychka. The bottom line here is that - for our "paired trends" test with adjustment of the S.E. for lag-1 autocorrelation effects - the sensitivity of rejection rate results to different choices in a), b), and c) appears to be fairly small (of order 1-2%). In other words, depending on the choices in a), b), and c), we obtain "average" rejection rates for 5% tests that vary between 4.7% and 7%. [As used here, "average" means "averaged over tests performed using 1000 different realizations of 100 different synthetic time series".] The key point here is that this 1-2% uncertainty in the empirically-determined rejection rate is very small relative to: i) The difference in rejection rates between our test and the Douglass et al. test in Figure 5 (this difference is typically 60% or larger); ii) The difference in rejection rates in "adjusted" and "unadjusted" forms of the "paired trends" test (which is of order 55% in Figure 5). Clearly, there is scope for more work in this area. But at this stage, I think we've almost reached the point of diminishing returns. Unless someone has a better idea, I suggest that we go with the current version of Figure 5, and briefly mention the sensitivity of the empirically-determined rejection rates to some of the choices noted above. Figure 6: This is the "vertical trend profile" Figure. Peter (with assistance from Leo) have been working hard to finalize this. I'm hoping that Peter will be able to distribute a version of this Figure tomorrow. That's all for tonight, folks! With best regards, Ben Susan Solomon wrote: > Dear Ben et al > > These diagrams seem to me to do a superb job of explaining things. They > will greatly help this paper to reach the interested non-specialist. > Unfortunately, a lot of people may now be being swayed by the incorrect > arguments being advanced recently by Douglass and their supporters; this > paper will be critical to many of those, who really wish to understand > but need the simple and honest helping hand that these figures provide. > Bravo. > > I want to make a few small suggestions that may help to make these very > excellent illustrations even more effective. > > I think Figure 2 should be figure 1 - i.e., show the reason why > auto-correlation is so important here right up front, and very > explicitly. I love this figure. Showing it before the MRI examples > helps the reader understand how to look at the MRI model results so show > it first. > > Then the old figure 1 becomes the new figure 2. It may be best to put > the ensemble mean on the top instead of the bottom, then follow that > with each of the realizations. If it doesn't make things look too > busy, it may also be useful to include red and blue trends and adjusted > and unadjusted errors for the ensemble, and for each realization in the > panels below the ensemble at top. This would allow the figure itself > to sequentially make the important point that Ben is making in words: > that the MRI model should not have been able to generate realization #1 > if the Douglass et al. approach to computing errors were right -- and > that establishes beyond doubt that their approach is not viable. > > Ben, many thanks -- this work is a great service to our science. > best > Susan > > > > > > At 10:28 PM -0800 1/14/08, Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Thanks for all your of comments. I am truly astonished and gratified. >> You have read a large number of lengthy Santer emails; examined >> different iterations of proposed Figures in microscopic detail; >> thought long and hard about the scientific issues raised by the >> Douglass et al. IJC paper; provided valuable advice on tricky >> statistical points, forcing uncertainties, and "response strategies"; >> supplied results from state-of-the-art radiosonde datasets; and have >> helped to draft the "vertical trend profile" Figure (Peter and Leo). >> All of you have given generously of your time, despite the many other >> commitments you must have. I'm very fortunate that I've had the >> benefit of your collective expertise. >> >> It's rather late at night, so this will be a short email. I'm >> appending two new Figures. I suggest that these should be the first >> two Figures of our paper. >> >> I decided to produce these Figures based on comments that I received >> from Susan. I've reproduced below an except from Susan's email. >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> Excerpt from Susan Solomon's email of January 10th, 2008: >> >> "I do want to urge you to think about the need for your paper to >> communicate clearly not just to specialists but to any educated >> person. While I understand what you are doing, I think your work is >> not going to penetrate very well with the type of person we most need >> to reach: interested and smart lay person who is not a statistician." >> >> "In the hope of helping you bridge that gap even better, I pose the >> following questions:" >> >> 1) "If you had to explain to a nonspecialist what temporal >> auto-correlation is, and why it matters in this case, what would you >> say? Imagine you are talking to a very smart person who never took >> statistics." >> >> 2) "Next, imagine that you had to show such a person a graph or a >> table to illustrate the problem. What would you show them?" >> >> 3) "If you had to explain to the interested but uneducated lay person >> why your error bars on the data are larger than those of Douglass at >> all, what would you tell them?" >> ========================================================================== >> >> >> The first of the two new Figures is targeted at Susan's "interested >> and smart lay person who is not a statistician." It shows the tropical >> T2LT changes in the five realizations of the 20c3m experiment >> performed with the MRI-CGCM2.3.2 model. This Figure makes a number of >> useful points: >> >> a) It shows the general problem of trying to fit linear trends to >> inherently noisy time series; >> >> b) It illustrates that for our short (21-year) analysis period, the >> overall linear trend is a relatively small component of the total >> variability of the tropical T2LT data. The total variability is >> dominated by temperature fluctuations on ENSO timescales; >> >> c) It shows that the five different 20c3m realizations have five >> different sequences of internally-generated variability, and visually >> illustrates that the temperature response to the forcings changed in >> the 20c3m experiment is signal + noise, not pure signal; >> >> d) It highlights deficiencies in the Douglass et al. "consistency >> test". Although these five MRI 20c3m realizations were generated with >> the same model, using exactly the same external forcings, realization >> 1 yields a tropical trend (over 1979 to 1999) that is close to zero, >> while realizations 2 through 5 yield positive trends, ranging from >> 0.28 to 0.37 degrees C/decade. If one applied the Douglass et al. test >> to the MRI data, one would erroneously conclude that realization 1 >> could not have been generated by the MRI model! >> >> e) It shows that, in the five-member MRI ensemble, averaging over >> different realizations of the 20c3m experiment reduces the amplitude >> of internally-generated variability, but does not totally remove this >> variability. Even in the ensemble-mean time series in panel F, there >> is still inherent statistical uncertainty in fitting a linear trend to >> the data. Although we've all noted that Douglass et al. do not account >> for statistical uncertainty in fitting a linear trend to the >> observations, it's also worth pointing out that they ignore the >> statistical uncertainty in the estimate of any individual model's >> ensemble-mean trend. >> >> After giving the reader some sense of the character of the T2LT >> anomaly time series, we move on to the temporal autocorrelation issue, >> and thus get to heart of Susan's three questions. Enter the new Figure 2. >> >> The new Figure 2 has two columns. The wide column on the left hand >> side shows two different sets of time series. The narrow column on the >> right hand side shows the estimated least-squares trends for these >> time series, together with their unadjusted and adjusted 95% >> confidence intervals. >> >> Consider the RSS results first (panel A). The linear trend in the >> tropical T2LT data, estimated from a time series of 252 months in >> length, is +0.166 degrees C/decade. Visually, it's immediately obvious >> that the departures of the original data from this least-squares fit >> (the residuals) are not randomly distributed in time - there is some >> persistence (temporal autocorrelation) of temperature information from >> one month to the next. Because of this, the number of independent time >> samples in the time series is much less than the actual number of time >> samples, n{t} (252 months). The lag-1 autocorrelation of the residuals >> is a simple measure of persistence, and can be used to obtain an >> estimate of the number of independent (or "effective") time samples, >> n{e}. In the case of the RSS data in panel A, r{1} is 0.88, and n{e} >> is roughly 16. >> >> The number of independent time samples influences the estimated value >> of s{b}, the standard error of the fitted linear trend. If we make the >> naive (and incorrect) assumption that the n{e} = n{t} = 252 (i.e., >> that the 252 residuals constitute 252 independent samples), then the >> estimated 1-sigma standard error is very small (roughly +/- 0.03 >> degrees C/decade). If we use the effective sample size n{e} to >> estimate the 1-sigma standard error, it is over four times larger (+/- >> 0.13 degrees c/decade). >> >> In our method for testing the significance of differences between the >> trends in two different time series, we employ the effective sample >> size to calculate standard errors that have been "adjusted" for >> temporal autocorrelation of the residuals. >> >> The bottom panel of Figure 2 shows a synthetic time series, in which >> Gaussian noise was added to the RSS T2LT trend of +0.166 degrees >> C/decade. The amplitude of the noise was chosen so that the temporal >> standard deviation of the synthetic data (0.31 degrees C) was >> identical to the standard deviation of the original RSS data. By >> chance, the addition of this particular realization of the noise >> slightly increases the original trend in the RSS data, so that the >> synthetic data has an overall trend of +0.174 degrees C/decade. >> >> Panel 2B illustrates the case of virtually no temporal autocorrelation >> of the residuals. The lag-1 autocorrelation of the residuals in panel >> B is very close to zero [r{1} = 0.034], which yields an effective >> sample size of 236. In other words, n{e} is close to n{t} - the number >> of effectively independent time samples is almost as large as the >> actual number of time samples. Because of this, the adjusted and >> unadjusted standard errors of the trend are both small and virtually >> identical. >> >> I hope these two Figures go some way towards addressing Susan's >> concerns. It took me a bit of time to generate them, which is why I've >> not yet completed the revisions to all of the other Figures. However, >> I did have some time to perform experiments to investigate the small >> "positive bias" in the rejection rates obtained with synthetic data. >> At the suggestion of Tom Wigley, I looked at whether this bias might >> be related to my use of a Normal distribution (rather than a >> t-distribution) to estimate p-values. For the t-distribution case, the >> sample size enters the picture not only in the calculation of the >> standard error of the linear trend, s{b}, but also in the degrees of >> freedom (DOF) used in the t-test. For the "unadjusted" case, the >> sample size size is 480 [i.e., n1{t} + n2{t} - 24, where n1{t} and >> n2{t} are the actual number of time samples in the first and second >> time series. The "minus 24" arises because in each time series, we've >> defined anomalies relative to climatological monthly means. For the >> "adjusted" case, I believe that the sample size is n1{e} + n2{e}. I >> don't think the "minus 24" term comes into it (although I may be >> wrong), since our estimate of the lag-1 autocorrelation of the >> regression residuals, and hence of n{e}, already depends on how we've >> defined anomalies (e.g., r{1} would be different if we define >> monthly-mean anomalies relative to climatological annual means rather >> than climatological monthly means). >> >> This is more detail than you probably ever want to know. The bottom >> line is that, even if I use the Student's t-distribution for >> calculating rejection rates (and irrespective of whether I use n{t} or >> n{e} for estimating the DOF for the t-test), I still get a small >> positive bias in rejection rates. Rejection rates for the Normal >> distribution case and t-distribution case are very similar. >> >> Tomorrow I'll experiment with John's suggested transformation of the >> rejection rate distribution. >> >> So much for my "short email"! It's now late at night, so hopefully >> this isn't too incoherent. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> John Lanzante wrote: >>> Dear Ben and All, >>> >>> After returning to the office earlier in the week after a couple of >>> weeks >>> off during the holidays, I had the best of intentions of responding to >>> some of the earlier emails. Unfortunately it has taken the better >>> part of >>> the week for me to shovel out my avalanche of email. [This has a lot to >>> do with the remarkable progress that has been made -- kudos to Ben >>> and others >>> who have made this possible]. At this point I'd like to add my 2 >>> cents worth >>> (although with the declining dollar I'm not sure it's worth that much >>> any more) >>> on several issues, some from earlier email and some from the last day >>> or two. >>> >>> I had given some thought as to where this article might be submitted. >>> Although that issue has been settled (IJC) I'd like to add a few related >>> thoughts regarding the focus of the paper. I think Ben has brokered the >>> best possible deal, an expedited paper in IJC, that is not treated as a >>> comment. But I'm a little confused as to whether our paper will be >>> titled >>> "Comments on ... by Douglass et al." or whether we have a bit more >>> latitude. >>> >>> While I'm not suggesting anything beyond a short paper, it might be >>> possible >>> to "spin" this in more general terms as a brief update, while at the >>> same >>> time addressing Douglass et al. as part of this. We could begin in the >>> introduction by saying that this general topic has been much studied and >>> debated in the recent past [e.g. NRC (2000), the Science (2005) >>> papers, and >>> CCSP (2006)] but that new developments since these works warrant >>> revisiting >>> the issue. We could consider Douglass et al. as one of several new >>> developments. We could perhaps title the paper something like >>> "Revisiting >>> temperature trends in the atmosphere". The main conclusion will be >>> that, in >>> stark contrast to Douglass et al., the new evidence from the last >>> couple of >>> years has strengthened the conclusion of CCSP (2006) that there is no >>> meaningful discrepancy between models and observations. >>> >>> In an earlier email Ben suggested an outline for the paper: >>> >>> 1) Point out flaws in the statistical approach used by Douglass et al. >>> >>> 2) Show results from significance testing done properly. >>> >>> 3) Show a figure with different estimates of radiosonde temperature >>> trends >>> illustrating the structural uncertainty. >>> >>> 4) Discuss complementary evidence supporting the finding that the >>> tropical >>> lower troposphere has warmed over the satellite era. >>> >>> I think this is fine but I'd like to suggest a couple of other items. >>> First, >>> some mention could be made regarding the structural uncertainty in >>> satellite >>> datasets. We could have 3a) for sondes and 3b) for satellite data. The >>> satellite issue could be handled in as briefly as a paragraph, or with a >>> bit more work and discussion a figure or table (with some trends). >>> The main >>> point to get across is that it's not just UAH vs. RSS (with an >>> implied edge >>> to UAH because its trends agree better with sondes) it's actually UAH vs >>> all others (RSS, UMD and Zou et al.). There are complications in >>> adding UMD >>> and Zou et al. to the discussion, but these can be handled either >>> qualitatively or quantitatively. The complication with UMD is that it >>> only >>> exists for T2, which has stratospheric influences (and UMD does not >>> have a >>> corresponding measure for T4 which could be used to remove the >>> stratospheric >>> effects). The complication with Zou et al. is that the data begin in >>> 1987, >>> rather than 1979 (as for the other satellite products). >>> >>> It would be possible to use the Fu method to remove the stratospheric >>> influences from UMD using T4 measures from either or both UAH and >>> RSS. It >>> would be possible to directly compare trends from Zou et al. with >>> UAH, RSS >>> & UMD for a time period starting in 1987. So, in theory we could include >>> some trend estimates from all 4 satellite datasets in apples vs. apples >>> comparisons. But perhaps this is more work than is warranted for this >>> project. >>> Then at very least we can mention that in apples vs. apples >>> comparisons made >>> in CCSP (2006) UMD showed more tropospheric warming than both UAH and >>> RSS, >>> and in comparisons made by Zou et al. their dataset showed more >>> warming than >>> both UAH and RSS. Taken together this evidence leaves UAH as the >>> "outlier" >>> compared to the other 3 datasets. Furthermore, better trend agreement >>> between >>> UAH and some sonde data is not necessarily "good" since the sonde >>> data in >>> question are likely to be afflicted with considerable spurious >>> cooling biases. >>> >>> The second item that I'd suggest be added to Ben's earlier outline >>> (perhaps >>> as item 5) is a discussion of the issues that Susan raised in earlier >>> emails. >>> The main point is that there is now some evidence that inadequacies >>> in the >>> AR4 model formulations pertaining to the treatment of stratospheric >>> ozone may >>> contribute to spurious cooling trends in the troposphere. >>> >>> Regarding Ben's Fig. 1 -- this is a very nice graphical presentation >>> of the >>> differences in methodology between the current work and Douglass et >>> al. However, I would suggest a cautionary statement to the effect >>> that while error >>> bars are useful for illustrative purposes, the use of overlapping >>> error bars >>> is not advocated for testing statistical significance between two >>> variables >>> following Lanzante (2005). >>> Lanzante, J. R., 2005: A cautionary note on the use of error bars. >>> Journal of Climate, 18(17), 3699-3703. >>> This is also motivation for application of the two-sample test that >>> Ben has >>> implemented. >>> >>> Ben wrote: >>>> So why is there a small positive bias in the empirically-determined >>>> rejection rates? Karl believes that the answer may be partly linked to >>>> the skewness of the empirically-determined rejection rate >>>> distributions. >>> [NB: this is in regard to Ben's Fig. 3 which shows that the rejection >>> rate >>> in simulations using synthetic data appears to be slightly positively >>> biased >>> compared to the nominal (expected) rate]. >>> >>> I would note that the distribution of rejection rates is like the >>> distribution >>> of precipitation in that it is bounded by zero. A quick-and-dirty way to >>> explore this possibility using a "trick" used with precipitation data >>> is to >>> apply a square root transformation to the rejection rates, average >>> these, then reverse transform the average. The square root >>> transformation should yield >>> data that is more nearly Gaussian than the untransformed data. >>> >>> Ben wrote: >>>> Figure 3: As Mike suggested, I've removed the legend from the >>>> interior of the Figure (it's now below the Figure), and have added >>>> arrows to indicate the theoretically-expected rejection rates for >>>> 5%, 10%, and 20% tests. As Dian suggested, I've changed the colors >>>> and thicknesses of the lines indicating results for the "paired >>>> trends". Visually, attention is now drawn to the results we think >>>> are most reasonable - the results for the paired trend tests with >>>> standard errors adjusted for temporal autocorrelation effects. >>> >>> I actually liked the earlier version of Fig. 3 better in some regards. >>> The labeling is now rather busy. How about going back to dotted, thin >>> and thick curves to designate 5%, 10%, and 20%, and also placing labels >>> (5%/10%/20%) on or near each curve? Then using just three colors to >>> differentiate between Douglass, paired/no_SE_adj, and paired/with_SE_adj >>> it will only be necessary to have 3 legends: one for each of the >>> three colors. >>> This would eliminate most of the legends. >>> >>> Another topic of recent discussion is what radiosonde datasets to >>> include >>> in the trend figure. My own personal preference would be to have all >>> available >>> datasets shown in the figure. However, I would defer to the individual >>> dataset creators if they feel uncomfortable about including sets that >>> are >>> not yet published. >>> >>> Peter also raised the point about trends being derived differently for >>> different datasets. To the extent possible it would be desirable to >>> have things done the same for all datasets. This is especially true for >>> using the same time period and the same method to perform the >>> regression. >>> Another issue is the conversion of station data to area-averaged >>> data. It's >>> usually easier to insure consistency if one person computes the trends >>> from the raw data using the same procedures rather than having several >>> people provide the trend estimates. >>> >>> Karl Taylor wrote: >>>> The lower panel ... >>>> ... By chance the mean of the results is displaced negatively ... >>>> ... I contend that the likelihood of getting a difference of x is equal >>>> to the likelihood of getting a difference of -x ... >>>> ... I would like to see each difference plotted twice, once with a >>>> positive >>>> sign and again with a negative sign ... >>>> ... One of the unfortunate problems with the asymmetry of the >>>> current figure is that to a casual reader it might suggest a >>>> consistency between the intra-ensemble distributions and the >>>> model-obs distributions that is not real >>>> Ben and I have already discussed this point, and I think we're both >>>> still a bit unsure on what's the best thing to do here. Perhaps >>>> others can provide convincing arguments for keeping the figure as is >>>> or making it symmetric as I suggest. >>> >>> I agree with Karl in regard to both his concern for misinterpretation as >>> well as his suggested solution. In the limit as N goes to infinity we >>> expect the distribution to be symmetric since we're comparing the >>> model data >>> with itself. The problem we are encountering is due to finite sample >>> effects. >>> For simplicity Ben used a limited number of unique combinations -- using >>> full bootstrapping the problem should go away. Karl's suggestion >>> seems like >>> a simple and effective way around the problem. >>> >>> Karl Taylor wrote: >>>> It would appear that if we believe FGOALS or MIROC, then the >>>> differences between many of the model runs and obs are not likely to >>>> be due to chance alone, but indicate a real discrepancy ... This >>>> would seem >>>> to indicate that our conclusion depends on which model ensembles we >>>> have >>>> most confidence in. >>> >>> Given the tiny sample sizes, I'm not sure one can make any meaningful >>> statements regarding differences between models, particularly with >>> regard to >>> some measure of variability such as is implied by the width of a >>> distribution. >>> This raises another issue regarding Fig. 2 -- why show the results >>> separately >>> for each model? This does not seem to be relevant to this project. Our >>> objective is to show that the models as a collection are not >>> inconsistent >>> with the observations -- not that any particular model is more or less >>> consistent with the observations. Furthermore showing results for >>> different >>> models tempts the reader to make such comparisons. Why not just >>> aggregate the >>> results over all models and produce a histogram? This would also >>> simplify >>> the figure. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> _____John >>> >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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: Junior:time_series4.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00233261) >> Attachment converted: Junior:error_compare3.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00233262) > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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\NEW_IJC_figure03.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NEW_IJC_figure04.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NEW_IJC_figure05.pdf" 3263. 2008-01-16 09:23:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Michael Mann , Gavin Schmidt date: Wed Jan 16 09:23:52 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]] to: Raymond P. Ray, Glad to see you're onto this. Obviously anything shouldn't make it even worse for Edouard, but you're in contact with him. I'd be happy to sign onto any letter from Science, but this isn't essential. I know the series Courtillot has used (and Pasotti re-uses) came from here, but it isn't what he and the authors says it was. I also know it doesn't make much difference if the correct one was used - given the smoothing. It is just sloppy and a principle thing. The correct data are sitting on our web site and have been since Brohan et al (2006) appeared in JGR. Even the earlier version (HadCRUT2v) would have been OK, but not a specially produced series for a tree-ring reconstruction paper back in 2001/2 and not on our web site. Then there are all the science issues you and Edouard have raised in RC and the EPSL comment. I have had a couple of exchanges with Courtillot. This is the last of them from March 26, 2007. I sent him a number of papers to read. He seems incapable of grasping the concept of spatial degrees of freedom, and how this number can change according to timescale. I also told him where he can get station data at NCDC and GISS (as I took a decision ages ago not to release our station data, mainly because of McIntyre). I told him all this as well when we met at a meeting of the French Academy in early March. What he understands below is my refusal to write a paper for the proceedings of the French Academy for the meeting in early March. He only mentioned this requirement afterwards and I said I didn't have the time to rewrite was already in the literature. It took me several more months of emails to get my expenses for going to Paris! Cheers Phil From Courtillot 26 March 2007 Dear Phil, Sure I understand. Now research wise I would like us to remain in contact. Unfortunately, I have too little time to devote to what is in principle not in my main stream of research and has no special funding. But still I intend to try and persist. I find these temperature and pressure series fascinating. I have two queries: 1) how easy is it for me (not a very agile person computer wise) to obtain the files of data you use in the various global or non global averages of T (I mean the actual montly data in each 5° box prior to any processing, including computation of the "temperature anomaly")? How do I do it? What I would like to be able to extract is for instance all of the data within a given 5° by 5° box with their dates (so: lat, lon, time, value). I understand these are monthly means, though we find that there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging, but this is another question... 2) I know you answered my question but still I have trouble grasping the answer. Could you explain how the global T average for periods say before 1900 can haev a total uncertainty under 0.2°C back to 1850. This can only be true, given the data distribution in the Rayner et al paper, if T is an incredibly smooth function of location. Did you really answer me that by extracting from the recent (post 1950) database data with the same geographical and temporal distributions as the 1850-1900 data you get almost the same result as with the full modern data (with an uncertainty just above 0.1°C). This seems truly amazing, and would never work with the global magnetic field data I am accustomed to work on. Yet it does not seem to me that climate varies as slowly and with as long spatial scales as the magnetic field... I will very much appreciate your comments and help on those. Thank you again for having come to our meeting. Yours very sincerely, Vincent -- 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 Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:20:57 -0500 From: Michael Mann Reply-To: mann@psu.edu Organization: Penn State University User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) To: Phil Jones , Gavin Schmidt Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard]] X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO update from Ray P... mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Edouard Bard] Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:20:59 -0600 From: Raymond P. [1] To: Group RealClimate [2] References: [3]<478CC27D.1040900@meteo.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 Content-Type: text/enriched; name="[6]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/TEMP/nsmail.1" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="[7]file:///C:/DOCUME~1/MICHAE~1/LOCALS~1/TEMP/nsmail.1" X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id m0FHKxKM050156 Yes indeed. I am writing a letter to Science today regarding Pasotti's ridiculous article. If anybody things the rest of RC should sign on to that as well, just let me know. I will also have to write a Part III, covering all the junk mentioned by Edouard and by Phil Jones. Courtillot's response (published via a legal device activated where there is the possibility of threatening a libel suit) appeared in Le Monde today. I may give it a week or so for new developments to settle down before writing. For example, Foucart may get a chance to write a response in Le Monde. While I'll wait a bit before doing the RC piece, I plan to send off the letter to Science this week. --Ray On Jan 15, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Michael Mann wrote: fyi, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Edouard Bard Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:59:44 +0000 From: Phil Jones To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov CC: Michael E. Mann References: <46E534DD.30206@met.no> <4756A519.4090906@met.no> <4757EFB1.1000608@met.no> <477CB5FA.609@met.no> Some emails within this and an attachment. Send on to Ray Pierrehumbert. Maybe you're aware but things in France are getting bad. One thing might be a letter to Science re the diagram in an editorial in Science. I did talk to the idiot who wrote this, but couldn't persuade him it was rubbish. This isn't the worst - see this email below from Jean Jouzel and Edouard Bard. My French is poor at the best of times, but this all seems unfair pressure on Edouard. See also this in French about me - lucky I can't follow it that well ! I know all this is a storm in a teacup - and I hope I'd show your resilience Mike if this was directed at me. I'm just happy I'm in the UK, and our Royal Society knows who and why it appoints its fellows! In the Science piece, the two Courtillot papers are rejected. I have the journal rejection emails - the other reviewer wasn't quite as strong as mine, but they were awfiul. Cheers Phil From: Jean Jouzel Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:07:14 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/5483/Mon Jan 14 15:45:01 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at shiva.jussieu.fr with ID 478BEB15.002 by Joe's j-chkmail ( [8]http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, Yes the situation is very bad in and I was indeed going to write you to ask somewhat for your help in getting some support to Edouard, which is really needed. Certainly one thing you could do would be to write to the editor of Science at least pointing to the fact that the figure is misleading using again the seasonal above 20°N Briffa et al. data set as global. May be also at some point write something supporting the answer of Edouard and Gilles Delaygue, to EPSL ( or in answering the letter Courtillot has recently written see attached in which he is very critical with respect to your work). I don't know .... Yes I will be in Vienna , this will be a pleasure to meet you With my best Jean Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4886. 2008-01-16 11:13:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:13:44 +0800 from: "Zhongwei Yan" subject: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends to: "Phil Jones" OK, Phil. I got your points. Actually, even for Beijing the 'urbanization' bias as infered from my recent study is also quite small comparing with the whole warming trend, 0.1 vs 0.6 C/dec for the last 3 decades. I have no problem with your conclusion in the paper. Our early analysis (Yan et al 2001 AAS) applied a bias (~0.1C/dec, based on Portman 1993 without rural record comparison) for Beijing during 1961-97, superimposing upon a linear warming of 0.2C/dec. It's a bit bizarre that my current analysis based on updated data (1975-2006) and detailed rural-site comparisons resulted in an almost same estimate for the urbanization effect, while warming goes on with a much stronger rate. Keep in touch. Cheers. Zhongwei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil Jones" To: "Zhongwei Yan" Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends > > Zhoingwei, > You have missed the point of the paper - or you seem to from > your statement > that it doesn't agree with your Beijing results. Beijing is just > one site !!! What > I'm looking at is the effect for the large area - which is what I'm > calling CHINA-LI. > The whole point in commenting on the other papers (like Ren et al.) is that > you can't extrapolate results from one or even a few sites. > > I know SST doesn't represent land, but it is the only series I can think > of that can be guaranteed to be unaffected. Again this is just for China > as a whole - and the whole SST area east of China. I couldn't get > Qingxiang Li > to say which sites were rural and which urban. A more detailed analysis > would look at coastal land sites with coastal SST, but they would > be much noisier. > > Also what matters is that my gridded series (CRUTEM3v for China) looks > just like CHINA-LI. > > I know the reanalysis can't be purified before 1979, unless the > assimilation scheme > is told the real observations have higher priority. Without higher > priority you can't > over come the model bias. > > What could be happening in much of China is that nighttime temps > are warming > much more than daytime, so any urban effect is reducing the DTR, but only > slightly affecting mean T. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 05:11 15/01/2008, you wrote: >>Hi, Phil, >> >>Thanks for informing of the recent analysis. I noted in the paper >>that the urbanization effect on the analysis of the average warming >>trend over a large area such as China is negligible. >> >>It is somehow not encouraging to my recent analysis of a detailed >>comparison between Beijing and rural sites temperature series. The >>Beijing station moved to a more-urban site in 1981 and back in 1997. >>We carefully compared the records during the subperiods around these >>years. The results tend to suggest a possibly urbanization-related >>trend of about 0.1C/decade. This estimate is very similar to that by >>Portman (1993), which we applied in Yan et al 2001 AAS. A paper is >>being drafted. I'll check again the results and send to you for >>comment a draft when completed. >> >>For the large-area mean trend analysis, I'd agree with your results >>but just provide some points helping discussion. >> >>(1) The SST can hardly represent the land base climate trend, as >>there are regional differences and the atmospheric circulation >>adjustments to SST do not necessarily lead to the same sign trend >>over the adjacent land area. >> >>(2) If the basic observations are contaminated by urbanization, I >>wonder if the re-analysis data can be purified. >> >>Best wishes and later greetings for a happy new year. >> >>Zhongwei >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Phil Jones" >>To: "Yan Zhongwei" >>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:33 PM >>Subject: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends >> >> >> > >> >> Dear Zhongwei, >> > I have mentioned to you that I've been working on a paper on >> > Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations >> > about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims >> > were groundless. >> > Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this >> draft. I have >> > spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it >> > is published >> > that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. >> > I want to make sure I'm referring to most of the Chinese literature >> > on urban related warming trends. >> > The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the >> difference >> > between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to >> > reference Luke Howard. >> > >> > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2385. 2008-01-16 16:38:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:38:00 -0000 from: "C G Kilsby" subject: Lemmy to: "Phil Jones" Phil - below Lenny's abstracts at AGU. See you tomorrow. Lenny Smith - Applications and limitations of using large state of the art climate ensembles for risk management How do we communicate what we know to people in the energy, insurance and finance industries? Business decisions look 1, 3, 5 years into the future; energy and insurance looks further ahead. 1. Head to head probabilistic hindcast comparisons of GCM simulations and statistical extrapolation would be of great value 2. All climate is local 3. The role of initial condition uncertainty At what space and time scales do we have decision relevant information? Is a 40 year window too long? What should we be using for some local variable of interest - 5 years? Global mean temperature is irrelevant to industry: all climates are local. Once we get down to the regional scale there is not a lot of difference between 3°C and 5°C climate sensitivity - i.e. pdfs overlap as there is a lot of natural variability. This is especially the case for precipitation: natural variability dominates the signal. For decisions made on the ground there is often significant overlap: global mean temperature is a poor index variable for local decisions! When will natural variability be swamped by climate change? Used a 64 member initial condition ensemble of HadSM3. CP.net range of change is enormous depending on initial conditions. UKCIP08 claim to be able to provide "probabilities for 2080 on hourly 5km scales" - can anyone provide 5km hourly information for the 2080s? Can we do this if there is not credible support for the science behind it? The timescale for losing credibility as a climate scientist is not 2080 but rather whenever we upgrade the probability generator! See LA Smith 2002, 2003, 2000 Lenny Smith - Questioning the relevance of model-based probability statements on extreme weather and future climate Climate change has stimulated much work at the science-industry interface. Therefore, there is a huge need for expectation management and sanity checking. UKCIP08 weather generator claims to be able to provide hourly data for the 2080s. But does our current understanding support claims to deliver information like this? Numerical decision-makers already see a paradox with the variability in AR4 global models. Climate science benefits when it communicates its limitations more clearly, so users can see progress in science as a good thing. Are pdfs decision-support relevant? Utility (probabilistic similarity) does not require a perfect model, just one that is fit for purpose. We should not sell what we have now as the basis for making decisions as they are not true probabilities. Who poses the greatest risk to climate science credibility? The climate scientists. lenny@maths.ox.ac.uk; www.lsecats.org 2226. 2008-01-17 12:24:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 12:24:12 +1300 from: David Thompson subject: Re: Some text - sent again!! to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks much for the great comments and for catching a couple of errors. I've made a number of changes to the manuscript, and have also addressed some points specifically below. I plan on sending a revised version to the whole group for any final comments within the next few hours. An aside: I wanted to acknowledge John Kennedy's work on the SST data in the authorship on this paper, but I expect the list will be different for the volcano paper. If you have any concerns about the authorship list, please let me know. Some clarification and responses.... 1. I know what you are saying about going 'over the top' for Nature. But I'm hesitant to add the ranking of warm years mainly because the COWL filtering removes a component of the warming due to circulation changes, which may or may not be linked to anthropogenic forcing. I decided to submit to Nature mainly because a lot of IPCC folks strongly suggested the errors in the SST data should be disseminated to a wide audience. If the Nature editors decide the discontinuity isn't worth publishing, then I'll be just as happy with J Climate. I plan on analyzing the residual time series in more detail in the longer paper on the volcanoes. 2. The COWL time series is dimensionless, so I think the correlation coefficients given in the table are probably more useful than the regression coefficients.... 3. I've clarified that smoothing the data will not give you the same result as filtering the COWL pattern. This is because the COWL pattern has the same temporal resolution as the original data. So our 'residual' time series has less high frequency noise, but it has not been low-pass filtered. This is key for identifying the step in 45. 4. Fig. 4 looks a little cluttered with more % time series on it, but if the paper survives review I could perhaps add a new time series with lots of different countries on it... I really like the slide from Scott Woodruff, but couldn't find a refereed reference to add that information. Perhaps we can add the anecdote about the shortsightedness of the US Maritime Commission as 'personal communication' in the revised version. 5. The TENSO time series I'm using is similar to a lagged and low-pass filtered ENSO index. 6. The COWL time series is linearly related to the NAM, but also to any other pattern that changes the large scale NH circulation (ie, the PNA, etc). Thanks again, Dave On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, We've had problems with our email system. Sending again, so you may get this twice. Cheers Phil Dave, Rather than go through the doc file, I'll make a few points directly by email. 1. I'll reckon you'll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for review. One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences. Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract from the main 1945 message. 2. The variability increase as you move back in time is mostly sampling and inevitable. Probably needs saying - could a foot/endnote. I don't think this would be any different if you'd used HadCRUT3v or CRUTEM3v, but I'd like to believe it would be!! 3. You mention regressions for ENSO and COWL. Can you give these regression coefficients? Or are they sort of pre-determined from theory? I read this late last night and couldn't quite follow. Some less important points. 1. With COWL, you could essentially smooth the series and get much the same result i.e. if you extracted just COWL then smoothed and compared with raw smoothed they would look much the same. 2. The companion paper on volcanoes ought to try and set up a measure for the drops - so it is all repeatable. I reckon there are one or two smaller NH volcanoes you might pick up. 3. With Fig4 you probably also need to show a plot of the overall SST count per year. % US/UK is OK, but this hides much reduced numbers in the 1940s. Perhaps you could show a plot of %US, %UK and %others in three colours in a cumulative way - soo all adds to 100%. 4. The bucket/engine room argument is the wrong way round. The change was to UK ships in Aug 45. 5. Could also add that the UK/US are digitizing more WW2 UK (RN) ships. I take it you're aware of the fate of the US WW2 navy ships. Scott Woodruff sent me the attached - he blacked out the name of who signed this! 6. We are the Climatic Research Unit and you could give our web site where all these series are. 7. T subscript E isn't defined. It is the whole tropics from surface to TOA to get the 255K. It's not defined as I can see why it is E. E for equator? 8. I presume the regressions are also based on 1950-2006 just like the correlations in the Table. Also these are monthly or appear to be from the plots. Are they similar for annual data? 9. With the ENSO series in the middle of Fig1. You could show how this compares with a suitably smoothed SOI. It looks as though it will agree well. I'm attaching an article where I sort of did this with regression against the SOI. 10. Does COWL look like a high-freq NAM? COWL seems to lose variability before 1880. Cheers Phil At 03:05 14/01/2008, you wrote: Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave  On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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 Earthâs Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [1]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [3]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 [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [5]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 [6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [7]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 Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [8]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [10]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 [11]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [12]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 [13]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [14]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 [15]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 4262. 2008-01-17 14:17:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: Susan Solomon , John Lanzante , Melissa Free ,Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley ,Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl ,Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Tim Osborn ,Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:17:59 -0800 from: Stephen Klein subject: Re: The minus 1 (.png or .ps.gz) to: Peter Thorne , Ben Santer Peter et al., Thanks for this figure updating Santer et al. 2005. Although I am a bit rusty on this subject, there are two questions I have: 1) Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface warming do this, and I can't think of a plausible physical reason for this. Do people feel the relative cooling of this layer relative to the surface is robust? 2) Have you thought of producing a comparison of models to radiosonde observations for a longer term trend (late 1950s to 1999)? My recollection (from when I worked with John L. and Dian S.) is that the tropical radiosonde upper troposphere temperature trends were a bit stronger over the longer-term. Even if you add this to the paper, it might be nice to examine a figure of this type for the longer period to assess models, and perhaps comment on in the paper. Steve At 02:56 AM 1/17/2008, Peter Thorne wrote: >First hack at a caption: > >Figure 6. Tropical trends from all available radiosonde products for >1979-1999. Trends have been calculated by zonally averaging the gridded >data; applying a cos(lat) weighting to this zonal profile over 20N to >20S to create a tropical mean timeseries; and then calculating a trend >from this timeseries using a median of pairwise slope estimator that is >robust to outliers (Lanzante, 1996). For RATPAC-A, which consists of a >much sparser network, the tropical mean timeseries available from their >website has been used to calculate the trend. Also shown are theoretical >expectations based upon the assumption that the tropical troposphere >behaves as a moist adiabat and climate model mean and 2 sigma estimates >as to what the true trend should be. Both these estimates are derived >from Figure 3 B of Santer et al. (2005), scaled by the available surface >estimates (taken from Santer et al., 2006). The implicit assumption is >made that these estimates adequately portray the real surface changes. > >I'm away Friday and Monday so will look afresh based upon accrued >comments on Tuesday and make any mods then. > >My thanks to Leo for all of his hard work to provide the RAOBCORE >products to me to calculate the trend values for this figure. And my >apologies that my temperamental computer served to delay this by 24 >hours ... (don't ask!) > >Peter >-- >Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist >Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB >tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 >www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs > > 2222. 2008-01-18 05:17:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Kevin Trenberth" , "Karl, Tom" , "Reto Ruedy" date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:17:06 -0500 from: "James Hansen" subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: Dueling climates] to: "Phil Jones" Thanks, Phil. Here is a way that Reto likes to list the rankings that come out of our version of land-ocean index. rank LOTI 1 2005 0.62C 2 1998 0.57C 2007 0.57C 2002 0.56C 2003 0.55C 2006 0.54C 7 2004 0.49C i.e., the second through sixth are in a statistical tie for second in our analysis. This seems useful, and most reporters are sort of willing to accept it. Given differences in treating the Arctic etc., there will be substantial differences in rankings. I would be a bit surprised is #7 (2004) jumpred ahead to be #2 in someone else's analysis, but perhaps even that is possible, given the magnitude of these differences. Jim On Jan 18, 2008 5:03 AM, Phil Jones <[1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote: Kevin, When asked I always say the differences are due to the cross-Arctic extrapolation. Also as you say there is an issue of SST/MAT coming in from ships/buoys in the Arctic. HadCRUT3 (really HadSST2) doesn't use these where there isn't a 61-90 climatology - a lot of areas with sea ice in most/some years in the base period. Using fixed SST values of -1.8C is possible for months with sea ice, but is likely to be wrong. MAT would be impossible to develop 61-90 climatologies for when sea ice was there. This is an issue that will have to addressed at some point as the sea ice disappears. Maybe we could develop possible approaches using some AMIP type Arctic RCM simulations? Agreeing on the ranks is the hardest of all measures. Uncertainties in global averages are of the order of +/- 0.05 for one sigma, so any difference between years of less than 0.1 isn't significant. We (MOHC/CRU) put annual values in press releases, but we also put errors. UK newspapers quote these, and the journalists realise about uncertainties, but prefer to use the word accuracy. We only make the press releases to get the numbers out at one time, and focus all the calls. We do this through WMO, who want the release in mid-Dec. There is absolutely no sense of duelling in this. We would be criticised if there were just one analysis. The science is pushing for multiple analyses of the same measure - partly to make sure people remember RSS and not just believe UAH. As we all know, NOAA/NASA and HadCRUT3 are all much closer than RSS and UAH! I know we all know all the above. I try to address this when talking to journalists, but they generally ignore this level of detail. I'll be in Boulder the week after next at the IDAG meeting (Jan 28-30) and another meeting Jan30/Feb 1. Tom will be also. Cheers Phil At 02:12 18/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote: FYI See the discussion below. Looks like clarification is called for when these statements are made that consider the other announcements. Kevin -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Dueling climates Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:51:13 -0500 From: Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal) [2] To: Kevin Trenberth [3], [4] CC: [5] References: [6]<7C368A942599A944A0C43774DE6412EE044C9964@DCNMLVEM01.e2k.ad.ge.com> [7]<478F89E4.10405@ucar.edu> [8]<478FBF64.1020500@ucar.edu> Rick, Kevin,  Attached is the NOAA release. I believe I had read that the discrepancy with the NASA ("Second hottest year") data/release was also related to how NOAA adjusts for heat island effects and resiteing of climate stations. In any event I don't think dueling climate data serves the broad goals of informing/educating the public and decision makers about climate change. I can hear some saying, "If NOAA and NASA can't even agree what the temperature was last year, how can we believe what they are saying about the future climate".  Bob   ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Kevin Trenberth [[9]mailto:trenbert@ucar.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:50 PM To: [10]anthes@ucar.edu Cc: Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal); [11]kseitter@ametsoc.org Subject: Re: Dueling climates Hi Rick My understanding is that the biggest source of this discrepancy is the way the Arctic is analyzed. We know that the sea ice was at record low values, 22% lower than the previous low in 2005. Some sea temperatures and air temperatures were as much as 7C above normal. But most places there is no conventional data. In NASA they extrapolate and build in the high temperatures in the Arctic. In the other records they do not. They use only the data available and the rest is missing. In most cases the values from recent years are about statistically tied and the ranking is one that separates values by hundredths of a degree. There is no correct way to do this (especially the treatment of missing data), and different groups do it differently. You typically get different answers if you compute the hemispheric means and average them vs computing the global mean, because more data are missing in the southern hemisphere. Although this can be addressed using remote sensing in recent times, the climatologies differ. Ideally one should have a global analysis with no missing data, and this occurs in the global analyses, but they have other problems. Hope this helps Kevin Rick Anthes wrote: Bob- I saw the NASA one (GISS) but not the NOAA release. Could you point me toward it? I see your point. These preliminary analyses may change with time and the press releases have not been peer-reviewed. I am surprised the two estimates disagree this much, but the difference is probably well within the uncertainty of the estimate of annual global temperatures. I'd be interested in Kevin's take on this. Rick Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal) wrote: Rick, Keith,  Don't know if this will come up in the Council or if there is time to even discuss but I'm sure you've seen the NOAA/NASA press releases and the news stories about the 2007 global temperatures. NASA says tied for "2nd hottest". . . NOAA says 5th warmest global and only 10th in US. Who does this serve but create confusion and add to the skeptics/denialists argument. . ."They can't even agree on last year's temperatures. . .why should we believe them?"  Science by press release doesn't serve anyone and certainly not a curious public.  Role for the AMS?   See you soon.  Bob Subject: NASA SCIENTISTS RELEASE 2007 TEMPERATURE DATA From: "Maria Frostic" [12] Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:26:13 -0500 To: "Maria Frostic" [13] To: "Maria Frostic" [14] Maria Frostic     1/15/08 (301) 286-9017 2007 Among Hottest Years on Record: NASA Scientists Release Global Temperature Analysis An analysis of 2007 global temperature data undertaken by scientists at Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York, reveals that 2007 is tied with 1998 as the second hottest year on record. The unusual warmth of 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean has entered the cool phase of its El NiÅo-La NiÅa cycle. The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic. Global warming has a larger affect in polar areas, as the loss of snow and ice leads to more open water, which absorbs more sunlight and warmth. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observations of record low Arctic sea ice in September 2007. The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 ranking as the hottest. Barring a large volcanic eruption, NASA scientists predict that a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next two to three years. A NASA TV Video File on this topic will run January 16th at 9 A.M., 12, 4, 8, and 10 P.M. EDT on the NASA TV media channel (#103). Video Highlights: * Colorful Visualizations of Global Temperature Data from 1880-2007 * Animations of Unique Perspectives on Ice Albedo * Animated Earth Displaying Seasonal Landcover and Arctic Sea Ice * Select Interview Clips with NASA Scientist Dr. James Hansen For high definition video downloads, print resolution still images, and a short web video on taking Earth's temperature, visit:  [15]http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth_temp.html NASA Television is carried on an MPEG-2 digital signal accessed via satellite AMC-6, at 72 degrees west longitude, transponder 17C, 4040 MHz, vertical polarization. A Digital Video Broadcast (DVB) - compliant Integrated Receiver Decoder (IRD) with modulation of QPSK/DBV, data rate of 36.86 and FEC <= is needed for reception. NASA TV Multichannel Broadcast includes Public Services Channel (#101), the Education Channel (#102) and the Media Services Channel (#103). For NASA TV information and schedules on the Web, visit: [16]www.nasa.gov/ntv Subject: NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide From: "NOAA News Releases" [17] Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:00:00 -0500 To: "Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal)" [18] To: "Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal)" [19] TO: Ryan, Bob; WRC-TV FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 15, 2008 *** NEWS FROM NOAA *** NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC Contact: John Leslie, 301-713-2087, ext. 174 NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide       The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on record, according to data from scientists at NOAAâs National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record. U.S. Temperature Highlights * The average U.S. temperature for 2007 was 54.2 degrees F; 1.4 degrees F warmer than the 20th century mean of 52.8 degrees F. NCDC originally estimated in mid-December that 2007 would end as the eighth warmest on record, but below-average temperatures in areas of the country last month lowered the annual ranking. For Alaska, 2007 was the 15th warmest year since statewide records began in 1918. * Six of the 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. have occurred since 1998, part of a three decade period in which mean temperatures for the contiguous U.S. have risen at a rate near 0.6 degrees F per decade. * For the contiguous U.S., the December 2007 mean temperature was 33.6 degrees F, near the 20th century average of 33.4 degrees F. The Southeast was much warmer than average, while 11 states, from the Upper Midwest to the West Coast, were cooler than average. * Warmer-than-average temperatures for December 2007 in large parts of the more heavily populated eastern U.S. resulted in temperature related energy demand about 1.9 percent below average for the nation as a whole, based on NOAAâs Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. For the year, the REDTI estimates that national residential energy consumption was about 2.5 percent below average. U.S. Precipitation Highlights December 2007 * December 2007 was wetter than normal for the contiguous U.S., the 18th wettest December since national records began in 1895. Thirty-seven states were wetter, or much wetter, than average. Only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Dakota were drier than average. * Precipitation was much above average in Washington state, due to a powerful storm that struck the Pacific Northwest in early December. Heavy rain and wind gusts greater than 100 mph caused widespread damage and the worst flooding in more than a decade in parts of western Oregon and Washington. Many locations received more than 10 inches of rainfall during the first three days of the month. * While above-average precipitation in late November and December led to improving drought conditions in parts of the Southwest, Southeast, and New England, more than three-fourths of the Southeast and half of the West remained in some stage of drought. Global Highlights * For December 2007, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest on record (0.72 degrees F or 0.40 degrees C above the 20th century mean). Separately, the global December land-surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record. The most anomalously warm temperatures occurred from Scandinavia to central Asia. * La Niña continued to strengthen as ocean surface temperatures in large areas of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific were more than 3 degrees F (1.7 degrees C) below average. The continuation of cooler-than-average temperatures dampened the global ocean average, which was the 18th warmest on record for December. * For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend. Note to Editors: Additional information on U.S. climate conditions in December and for 2007 is available online at: [20]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/dec07.html and [21]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html. - 30 - -- ****************************************************************** Dr.Richard A. Anthes Phone: 303-497-1652 President University Corporation for Atmospheric Research P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000 For delivery via express mail, please use: 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80305 ***************************************************************** -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [22]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [23] 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: [24]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [25]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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from [26]rkfmlef01.e2k.ad.ge.com ([[27]3.159.183.51]) by [28]DCNMLVEM01.e2k.ad.ge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:24 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_003_01C857B1.23BF5550" Received: from [29]useclpexw213.nbcuni.ge.com ([[30]3.44.150.24]) by [31]rkfmlef01.e2k.ad.ge.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:24 -0500 Received: from [32]int-ch1gw-3.online-age.net ([[33]3.159.232.67]) by [34]useclpexw213.nbcuni.ge.com (SonicWALL 6.0.1.9157) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:24 -0500 Received: from [35]ext-ch1gw-9.online-age.net (int-ch1gw-3 [[36]3.159.232.67]) by [37]int-ch1gw-3.online-age.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/20050510-SVVS) with ESMTP id m0FJxNgI021683 for <[38]bob.ryan@nbc.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from [39]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov ([40]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov [[41]140.90.121.157]) by [42]ext-ch1gw-9.online-age.net (8.13.6/8.13.6/20051111-SVVS-TLS-DNSBL) with ESMTP id m0FJxKss007414 for <[43]bob.ryan@nbc.com>; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:23 -0500 Received: from [44]HCHB-WIRNS.noaa.gov ([[45]170.110.255.148]) by [46]mmp2.nems.noaa.gov (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <[47]0JUP00MVJBIAQ7B0@mmp2.nems.noaa.gov> for [48]bob.ryan@nbc.com; Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:59:16 -0500 (EST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:00:00 -0500 Message-ID: <[49]0JUP00MZVBISQ7B0@mmp2.nems.noaa.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide Thread-Index: AchXsSO/aYafvboCRgCNpqPHISPHPg== From: "NOAA News Releases" <[50]Press.Releases@noaa.gov> To: "Ryan, Bob (NBC Universal)" <[51]Bob.Ryan@nbcuni.com> TO: Ryan, Bob; WRC-TV FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 15, 2008 *** NEWS FROM NOAA *** NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON, DC Contact: John Leslie, 301-713-2087, ext. 174 NOAA: 2007 Was Tenth Warmest for U.S., Fifth Warmest Worldwide The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. in 2007 is officially the tenth warmest on record, according to data from scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The agency also determined the global surface temperature last year was the fifth warmest on record. U.S. Temperature Highlights * The average U.S. temperature for 2007 was 54.2 degrees F; 1.4 degrees F warmer than the 20th century mean of 52.8 degrees F. NCDC originally estimated in mid-December that 2007 would end as the eighth warmest on record, but below-average temperatures in areas of the country last month lowered the annual ranking. For Alaska, 2007 was the 15th warmest year since statewide records began in 1918. * Six of the 10 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. have occurred since 1998, part of a three decade period in which mean temperatures for the contiguous U.S. have risen at a rate near 0.6 degrees F per decade. * For the contiguous U.S., the December 2007 mean temperature was 33.6 degrees F, near the 20th century average of 33.4 degrees F. The Southeast was much warmer than average, while 11 states, from the Upper Midwest to the West Coast, were cooler than average. * Warmer-than-average temperatures for December 2007 in large parts of the more heavily populated eastern U.S. resulted in temperature related energy demand about 1.9 percent below average for the nation as a whole, based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index. For the year, the REDTI estimates that national residential energy consumption was about 2.5 percent below average. U.S. Precipitation Highlights December 2007 * December 2007 was wetter than normal for the contiguous U.S., the 18th wettest December since national records began in 1895. Thirty-seven states were wetter, or much wetter, than average. Only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Dakota were drier than average. * Precipitation was much above average in Washington state, due to a powerful storm that struck the Pacific Northwest in early December. Heavy rain and wind gusts greater than 100 mph caused widespread damage and the worst flooding in more than a decade in parts of western Oregon and Washington. Many locations received more than 10 inches of rainfall during the first three days of the month. * While above-average precipitation in late November and December led to improving drought conditions in parts of the Southwest, Southeast, and New England, more than three-fourths of the Southeast and half of the West remained in some stage of drought. Global Highlights * For December 2007, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the 13th warmest on record (0.72 degrees F or 0.40 degrees C above the 20th century mean). Separately, the global December land-surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record. The most anomalously warm temperatures occurred from Scandinavia to central Asia. * La Niña continued to strengthen as ocean surface temperatures in large areas of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific were more than 3 degrees F (1.7 degrees C) below average. The continuation of cooler-than-average temperatures dampened the global ocean average, which was the 18th warmest on record for December. * For 2007, the global land and ocean surface temperature was the fifth warmest on record. Separately, the global land surface temperature was warmest on record while the global ocean temperature was 9th warmest since records began in 1880. Seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, part of a rise in temperatures of more than 1 degree F (0.6 degrees C) since 1900. Within the past three decades, the rate of warming in global temperatures has been approximately three times greater than the century scale trend. Note to Editors: Additional information on U.S. climate conditions in December and for 2007 is available online at: [52]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/dec/dec07.html and [53]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html . - 30 - Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email [54]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4613. 2008-01-18 11:01:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Thorne , Ben Santer , Susan Solomon , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:01:43 -0500 from: Steve Sherwood subject: Re: The minus 1 (.png or .ps.gz) to: Stephen Klein Stephen et al., Stephen Klein wrote: > Peter et al., > > Thanks for this figure updating Santer et al. 2005. Although I am a > bit rusty on this subject, there are two questions I have: > > 1) Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum > (and some negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with > significant surface warming do this, and I can't think of a plausible > physical reason for this. Do people feel the relative cooling of this > layer relative to the surface is robust? This feature is very dataset-dependent. It does not appear at all in my homogenized radiosonde dataset (which is not currently in Peter's figure), but appears very strongly in the Haimberger et al. datasets (and, I believe, in the raw reanalysis product used to do the homogenization for all three versions). It also appears somewhat in a temperature reconstruction based on geostrophic winds that my student has done, but only for the 1979-05 time period. I agree with you that it would be bizarre, physically, on very long time scales but if you look at individual model realizations you do find variability from one run to the next that, over short (25 year) time periods, does show warmings at different heights that deviate from a moist adiabat. I suspect that the profiles are strictly adiabatic in regions of deep convection but not quite so in tropical means because of decadal variations in the stationary wave pattern and the poleward heat flux. So it could be real but that wouldn't necessarily make it representative of the longer-term trend. > > 2) Have you thought of producing a comparison of models to radiosonde > observations for a longer term trend (late 1950s to 1999)? My > recollection (from when I worked with John L. and Dian S.) is that the > tropical radiosonde upper troposphere temperature trends were a bit > stronger over the longer-term. Even if you add this to the paper, it > might be nice to examine a figure of this type for the longer period > to assess models, and perhaps comment on in the paper. I agree that it is worth noting in the paper that the improved agreement between radiosonde and anticipated trends when one reaches farther back in time (already well documented) is consistent with the hypothesis that there were problems with the data in the 1980's. Steve > > Steve > > At 02:56 AM 1/17/2008, Peter Thorne wrote: >> First hack at a caption: >> >> Figure 6. Tropical trends from all available radiosonde products for >> 1979-1999. Trends have been calculated by zonally averaging the gridded >> data; applying a cos(lat) weighting to this zonal profile over 20N to >> 20S to create a tropical mean timeseries; and then calculating a trend >> from this timeseries using a median of pairwise slope estimator that is >> robust to outliers (Lanzante, 1996). For RATPAC-A, which consists of a >> much sparser network, the tropical mean timeseries available from their >> website has been used to calculate the trend. Also shown are theoretical >> expectations based upon the assumption that the tropical troposphere >> behaves as a moist adiabat and climate model mean and 2 sigma estimates >> as to what the true trend should be. Both these estimates are derived >> from Figure 3 B of Santer et al. (2005), scaled by the available surface >> estimates (taken from Santer et al., 2006). The implicit assumption is >> made that these estimates adequately portray the real surface changes. >> >> I'm away Friday and Monday so will look afresh based upon accrued >> comments on Tuesday and make any mods then. >> >> My thanks to Leo for all of his hard work to provide the RAOBCORE >> products to me to calculate the trend values for this figure. And my >> apologies that my temperamental computer served to delay this by 24 >> hours ... (don't ask!) >> >> Peter >> -- >> Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist >> Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB >> tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 >> www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs >> >> > -- Steven Sherwood Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu Yale University ph: 203 432-3167 P. O. Box 208109 fax: 203 432-3134 New Haven, CT 06520-8109 http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood 1509. 2008-01-18 13:10:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 18 13:10:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: EGU 2008] to: mann@psu.edu, Jean Jouzel Mike, Jean Thanks. I'll probably go with Vinther et al for the third invited. Not just as I'm on the author list, but because he'll show (will submit soon) that the Greenland borehole records (Dorthe Dahl Jensen) are winter proxies. Has implications for the Norse Vikings - as the summer isotopes (which unfortunately respond much to Icelandic than SW Greenland temps) don't show any Medieval warming. Jean probably knew all this. The bottom line is that annual isotopes are essentially winter isotopes as they vary 2-3 times as much as summer ones. If the squeezing of the layers doesn't distort anything this implies longer series are very winter half year dominant. I mostly agree with the other orals, but I have to look at a few. There is one on the Millennium project (EU funded) which Jean knows about. Might have to give this an oral slot. Jean - any thoughts? I assume you're happy to chair a session. I also need to check whether we will have to talk a medallist talk? No idea who? Cheers Phil At 17:05 17/01/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by f05n05.cac.psu.edu id m0HH5gQ6025372 Dear Phil and Jean, We got an impressive turnout this year for our session, 37 total submitted abstracts. Please see attached word document. Based on the rules described by EGU below, I suggest we have 2 oral sessions (consisting of morning and afternoon), with a total of 10 oral presentations w/ 7 of those being regular 15 minutes slots and 3 of those invited 25 minute slots. The other 27 abstracts will be posters, conforming w/ the fairly harsh limits imposed by EGU on oral presentations. My suggestions would be as follow: Invited Presentations (25 minutes): 1 Ammann et al 2 Hughes et al 3 either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al (preferences?) Other Oral (15 minutes): 4. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al 5. 3 other of either Emile Geay et al OR Vinther et al OR Crespin et al 6. Riedwyl et al 7. Graham et al 8. Smerdon et al 9. Kleinen et al 10. Jungklaus et al Posters: All others Please let me know what you think. If these sound good to you, I'll go ahead and arrange the session online, Mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: EGU 2008 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:03:43 +0100 From: Andrea Bleyer [1] To: [2]Denis.Rousseau@lmd.ens.fr, [3]thomas.wagner@ncl.ac.uk, [4]f.doblas-reyes@ecmwf.int, [5]tilmes@ucar.edu, [6]p.wadhams@damtp.cam.ac.uk, [7]jbstuut@marum.de, [8]harz@gfz-potsdam.de, [9]w.hoek@geo.uu.nl, Johann Jungclaus [10], Heiko Paeth [11], [12]piero.lionello@unile.it, [13]boc@dmi.dk, [14]helge.drange@nersc.no, [15]chris.d.jones@metoffice.com, [16]martin.claussen@zmaw.de, [17]gottfried.kirchengast@uni-graz.at, [18]matthew.collins@metoffice.gov.uk, [19]martin.beniston@unige.ch, [20]d.stainforth1@physics.ox.ac.uk, [21]rwarritt@bruce.agron.iastate.edu, Seneviratne Sonia Isabelle [22], Wild Martin [23], Nanne Weber [24], [25]Hubertus.Fischer@awi.de, [26]rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, [27]azakey@ictp.it, [28]mann@psu.edu, [29]steig@u.washington.edu, [30]nalan.koc@npolar.no, [31]florindo@ingv.it, [32]ggd@aber.ac.uk, [33]oromero@ugr.es, [34]v.rath@geophysik.rwth-aachen.de, [35]awinguth@uta.edu, [36]l.haass@mx.uni-saarland.de, [37]Gilles.Ramstein@cea.fr, Andre Paul [38], [39]lucarini@adgb.df.unibo.it, Martin Trauth [40], [41]nathalie.fagel@ulg.ac.be, [42]hans.renssen@geo.falw.vu.nl, [43]Xiaolan.Wang@ec.gc.ca, [44]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, alessandra negri [45], [46]ferretti@unimore.it, [47]Mark.Liniger@meteoswiss.ch, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh [48], [49]pjr@ucar.edu, [50]keith@ucalgary.ca, [51]piacsek@nrlssc.navy.mil, [52]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, [53]hatte@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, [54]peter.kershaw@arts.monash.edu.au, [55]icacho@ub.edu, [56]kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, Thomas Felis [57], [58]olander@gfy.ku.dk, [59]karenluise.knudsen@geo.au.dk, [60]aku@geus.dk, [61]Marie-Alexandrine.Sicre@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, [62]reichart@geo.uu.nl, [63]M.N.Tsimplis@soton.ac.uk, [64]c.goodess@uea.ac.uk, [65]r.sutton@reading.ac.uk, [66]valexeev@iarc.uaf.edu, [67]victor.brovkin@pik-potsdam.de, [68]zeng@atmos.umd.edu, [69]terray@cerfacs.fr, [70]dufresne@lmd.jussieu.fr, [71]Burkhardt.Rockel@gkss.de, [72]hurkvd@knmi.nl, [73]philippe.ciais@lsce.ipsl.fr, [74]rolf.philipona@meteoswiss.ch, [75]Masa.Kageyama@lsce.ipsl.fr, [76]jules@jamstec.go.jp, [77]ewwo@bas.ac.uk, [78]raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, [79]omarchal@whoi.edu, [80]claire.waelbroeck@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, Phil Jones [81], [82]jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, [83]Jeff.Blackford@Manchester.ac.uk, [84]gerardv@nioz.nl, [85]dharwood1@unl.edu, [86]lang@liv.ac.uk, Irka Hajdas [87], [88]x.crosta@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr, [89]pascal.claquin@unicaen.fr, Gonzalez-Rouco [90], [91]jsa@ig.cas.cz, [92]dankd@atmos.umd.edu, [93]kbice@whoi.edu, "Brinkhuis, dr. H. (Henk)" [94], [95]andy@seao2.org, [96]kbillups@udel.edu, [97]anita.roth@uni-tuebingen.de, Gerrit Lohmann [98], [99]P.J.Valdes@bristol.ac.uk, [100]strecker@geo.uni-potsdam.de, [101]mmaslin@geog.ucl.ac.uk, [102]marie-france.loutre@uclouvain.be, [103]aurelia.ferrari@oma.be, [104]j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk, Torsten Bickert [105], [106]chris.d.jones@metoffice.gov.uk, [107]elsa.cortijo@lsce.ipsl.fr, [108]gerald.ganssen@falw.vu.nl, [109]arne.richter@copernicus.org, Andrea Bleyer [110], "Amelung B (ICIS)" [111], [112]spn@env.ethz.ch, [113]bgomez@ub.edu, [114]wmson@ucar.edu, [115]d.vance@bristol.ac.uk Dear convener and co-convener, Thanks a lot for your effort for sucessful sessions at the EGU 2008. >From our experience of the last years, there will be an oral-to-poster ratio of about 1:2 (e.g. ~33 % of the contributions can get a talk). This means that for a complete session, you need 18 contribu tions. 18:3 * 15min = 1.5h = 1 block For those of you who are under the number of 18, there are several options: 1) a pure poster session 2) merging with a related session 3) the contributions will go to the open session (CL0) 4) if you are just below 18, you may manage to get late contributions within the next days (please n o dummy posters) Please tell me which option do you like most (email to [116]andrea.bleyer@awi.de). In case 2), please contact the respective conveners in advance. The session could be also from other divisions (BG, OS, AS, IS, ..). In case of merging, you may speak with the persons whether it would be appropiate to modify the titl e of the new session or to have a combined name with both titles. I think the general rule is that the convener of the merged session is the person with the bigger se ssion. Kind regards Gerrit --- Prof. Dr. Gerrit Lohmann Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research Bussestr. 24 D-27570 Bremerhaven Germany Email: [117]Gerrit.Lohmann@awi.de Telephone: +49(471)4831-1758 / 1760 Fax: +49(471)4831-1797 [118]http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/CurriculumVitae/glohmann.html [119]http://www.awi.de/en/go/paleo -- 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: [120]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [121]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3583. 2008-01-18 14:54:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 18 14:54:07 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Some text - sent again!! to: David Thompson Dave, Will send a few comments in a while. Where are you - it looks like Hawaii? Why is your clock 13 hours out from mine. It isn't Fort Collins? OK re authorship. You'll need a good case for Nature to send out for review. So an accompanying letter might be useful. You weren't meant to find a reference for the US Decision to trash the WW2 logs. Cheers Phil At 23:24 16/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Thanks much for the great comments and for catching a couple of errors. I've made a number of changes to the manuscript, and have also addressed some points specifically below. I plan on sending a revised version to the whole group for any final comments within the next few hours. An aside: I wanted to acknowledge John Kennedy's work on the SST data in the authorship on this paper, but I expect the list will be different for the volcano paper. If you have any concerns about the authorship list, please let me know. Some clarification and responses.... 1. I know what you are saying about going 'over the top' for Nature. But I'm hesitant to add the ranking of warm years mainly because the COWL filtering removes a component of the warming due to circulation changes, which may or may not be linked to anthropogenic forcing. I decided to submit to Nature mainly because a lot of IPCC folks strongly suggested the errors in the SST data should be disseminated to a wide audience. If the Nature editors decide the discontinuity isn't worth publishing, then I'll be just as happy with J Climate. I plan on analyzing the residual time series in more detail in the longer paper on the volcanoes. 2. The COWL time series is dimensionless, so I think the correlation coefficients given in the table are probably more useful than the regression coefficients.... 3. I've clarified that smoothing the data will not give you the same result as filtering the COWL pattern. This is because the COWL pattern has the same temporal resolution as the original data. So our 'residual' time series has less high frequency noise, but it has not been low-pass filtered. This is key for identifying the step in 45. 4. Fig. 4 looks a little cluttered with more % time series on it, but if the paper survives review I could perhaps add a new time series with lots of different countries on it... I really like the slide from Scott Woodruff, but couldn't find a refereed reference to add that information. Perhaps we can add the anecdote about the shortsightedness of the US Maritime Commission as 'personal communication' in the revised version. 5. The TENSO time series I'm using is similar to a lagged and low-pass filtered ENSO index. 6. The COWL time series is linearly related to the NAM, but also to any other pattern that changes the large scale NH circulation (ie, the PNA, etc). Thanks again, Dave On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, We've had problems with our email system. Sending again, so you may get this twice. Cheers Phil Dave, Rather than go through the doc file, I'll make a few points directly by email. 1. I'll reckon you'll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for review. One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences. Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract from the main 1945 message. 2. The variability increase as you move back in time is mostly sampling and inevitable. Probably needs saying - could a foot/endnote. I don't think this would be any different if you'd used HadCRUT3v or CRUTEM3v, but I'd like to believe it would be!! 3. You mention regressions for ENSO and COWL. Can you give these regression coefficients? Or are they sort of pre-determined from theory? I read this late last night and couldn't quite follow. Some less important points. 1. With COWL, you could essentially smooth the series and get much the same result i.e. if you extracted just COWL then smoothed and compared with raw smoothed they would look much the same. 2. The companion paper on volcanoes ought to try and set up a measure for the drops - so it is all repeatable. I reckon there are one or two smaller NH volcanoes you might pick up. 3. With Fig4 you probably also need to show a plot of the overall SST count per year. % US/UK is OK, but this hides much reduced numbers in the 1940s. Perhaps you could show a plot of %US, %UK and %others in three colours in a cumulative way - soo all adds to 100%. 4. The bucket/engine room argument is the wrong way round. The change was to UK ships in Aug 45. 5. Could also add that the UK/US are digitizing more WW2 UK (RN) ships. I take it you're aware of the fate of the US WW2 navy ships. Scott Woodruff sent me the attached - he blacked out the name of who signed this! 6. We are the Climatic Research Unit and you could give our web site where all these series are. 7. T subscript E isn't defined. It is the whole tropics from surface to TOA to get the 255K. It's not defined as I can see why it is E. E for equator? 8. I presume the regressions are also based on 1950-2006 just like the correlations in the Table. Also these are monthly or appear to be from the plots. Are they similar for annual data? 9. With the ENSO series in the middle of Fig1. You could show how this compares with a suitably smoothed SOI. It looks as though it will agree well. I'm attaching an article where I sort of did this with regression against the SOI. 10. Does COWL look like a high-freq NAM? COWL seems to lose variability before 1880. Cheers Phil At 03:05 14/01/2008, you wrote: Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave  On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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 Earthâs Atmosphere. American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C. 239-254. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [1]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [3]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 [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [5]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 [6]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [7]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 Phil, You are more than welcome to show any slides... hopefully the work will be well into the review process by then... in fact, I'd be happy to grind out similar analyses for a longer paleo record for you, if you like. As for the papers: as I mentioned I've shown the step in 45 work to a number of folks closely involved in the last IPCC, and all were adamant we should submit that particular result to Nature. So I figured I'd give that venue a shot, saving the volcano results for a slightly longer J Climate paper. Anyway, I've attached a first draft of the 'step in 45' paper (figures as pdf; text as pdf and doc). I figured I'd run the text by folks individually once before I send a draft to the group. If all goes well I hope to try and submit something in the next couple weeks... Please feel free to offer any comments that come to mind, both general and specific. Thanks again for collaborating with me on this... it's fun.... -Dave On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:08 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Sounds fine. Will read through drafts when they come. A question. I'm planning to go to a meeting Henry Diaz is organising in Tahiti in early April. It's sort of Henry's swansong, so keen to go. It's also the only chance I'll get to go there !! I have to write an abstract - it's about paleo and ENSO. Is it OK to use a couple of the plots on ENSO extraction - from the global T records? Cheers Phil At 02:32 11/01/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A quick update: After mulling it over, I've decided to see if the 'step in 45' and volcanic results will have more impact if split into two papers. My feeling was that the 'step in 45' was getting lost in the volcanic results. The 'step in 45' paper will be relatively short and punchy; the volcano paper will be a bit longer. I've nearly got a first draft of both papers done. I expect to be able to send you a full first draft of the 'step in 45' paper sometime next week. I expect to have a full draft of the volcano paper ready shortly after submitting the 'step in 45' paper. Thanks again for collaborating with me on the papers... -Dave On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:37 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, How the volcanoes stuff is done is in 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. Someone in the HC may have a copy or the library does. I do, but when we got the pdfs from AGU they were enormous (and still are) so can't email. This shows the individual eruptions for the 'raw' data rezeroed to the 5 year average of the period before the eruption. Dave is doing this for 10 years before, then using the residuals, then taking the trend out. I'm surprised it makes such a difference - especially with the trend approach. The residuals look fine. Dave has to look at the individual eruptions. There is quite a lot of inter-eruption variability. Cheers Phil At 16:57 13/12/2007, John Kennedy wrote: Dear Dave and Phil, In answer to Phil's question concerning other jumps in the mix, I think this is the only jump that can be identified based on the country metadata, where we can also be fairly sure there was a step change in the measurement method. The drop in US obs in the 1960s occurs when many more countries are contributing to the mix and so we're still not sure how this change maps onto measurement method, which is what really causes the biases. I had some difficulty understanding how Figure 3 was created - is the diagram just a straight average of the anomalies before and after the January of each volcano? Or has there been some zeroing? I'd be interested in seeing the individual volcanoes that go into the composite. Dave, if you have no objections to sending me the raw and residual time series, I can experiment with these things myself. As for the journal, I agree with Phil. David Parker also suggested BAMS, based on its having a wider readership, but JGR or J Clim sound fine to me. Best regards, John On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:31 +1100, David Thompson wrote: > Dear Phil and John, > > > Please find attached some draft text for the results section of the > paper. > > > At this stage, I want to make sure everyone is comfortable with the > main results section. I will send the other sections in a future > email. > > > Hopefully the text is straightforward to follow even though you don't > have a copy of the analysis details (and the figure captions are still > under construction). Please don't worry about editing - I'm mainly > interested in getting your general impressions. > > > (Phil: I've already iterated with John on the 'dip in 45' text; but > I'm curious to know what you think.) > > > One general question: I am planning on submitting the paper to J > Climate. Does this seem appropriate to both of you? I don't want the > 'dip in 45' text to be buried in a long paper, so I've been toying > with other venues... if you have any thoughts on the best journal, > please let me know. It will impact how the final writing evolves. > > > I will be on travel next week, then the holidays will be upon us. So > no rush. I'll be back working on the paper shortly after the New Year. > And my hope is to submit the paper in January. > > > Thanks again ... > Dave > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [8]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [10]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 [11]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [12]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 [13]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [14]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 [15]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [16]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3916. 2008-01-18 17:46:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 18 17:46:42 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Global Temperatures to: "Roger Coe" Roger, Not in the short term, because we (Jim and me) don't see the issue as high priority. There errors on the individual values. You do look at trends over the longest period to include satellite data. The Satellite data isn't the surface so doesn't have to agree. You could look at the RSS satellite series as well. Cheers Phil At 15:15 18/01/2008, you wrote: Phil, Thank you for your response, there seems to be general agreement that the Arctic temperatures are a problem. I have collated the hemispheric decadal trends over the 32 year period for the 3 main datasets as follows. Global N Hemisphere S Hemisphere HadCRUT3 0.15C 0.24C 0.13C GISTEMP 0.21C 0.31C 0.11C UAH Satellite 0.14C 0.21C 0.07C These figures also show a high value for the GISTEMP N Hemisphere, and their figure for the N polar region is 0.57C/decade. Hansen emphasises the importance of the Arctic data in determining the true global temperature and gives some indication of his methodology. Do you see any prospect of reconciling the differences which have developed between the two land based datasets,or is there a genuine difference in coverage. I was also interested in Hansen's comments on Solar Variability which suggest a bigger influence than he has previously acknowledged. He is even interested in solar cycle 24. Regards Roger. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3915. 2008-01-19 16:51:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: davet@atmos.colostate.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:51:02 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: the penultimate draft to: "John Kennedy" Dave, I meant you to add this acknowledgement. PDJ has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (grant DE-FG02-98ER62601). See my point re 0.3 and 0.4 - need to be careful with SST only and true global. If adjustments go thru the 1950s more than implied this would help the Detection diagram I alluded to in my email yesterday. Also for John, saying we're waiting for more digitizing justifies the year's delay better. We don't want to have to wait... Cheers Phil PS Yes do come by Norwich when you're at Reading > Dave, > > I've made some changes to the attached version of the draft, summarised > below. The largest changes I've suggested (1 and 3 below) are in the > abstract and the final paragraph which discusses the adjustments. > > 1) In the abstract I suggested changing the second sentence to "The > discontinuity occurs in late 1945 and contributes substantially to the > apparent cooling of ~0.4C at the end of the Second World War." as it is > possible that at least part of the drop is real. > > 2) The adjustments could conceivably take a year to complete, but might > be completed sooner. I think the danger of saying it will take much less > than a year is that the reviewers could tell us to go away and do it. > I've suggested removing that part of the sentence. > > 3) I've added to the draft a rough estimate of the size of the > corrections - based on the size of the bucket corrections just before > the war - which emphasises the fact that we expect the corrections to > shrink to zero by the mid-1960s. I've seen some unusual diagrams > suggesting that the full bucket correction (~0.4C) should be applied > right through to the 1970s and it's worth emphasising that that's not > what we're advocating. > > 4) The global mean land time series exhibits a small cooling from the > middle of the century to the 80s. I've made a change to this effect in > the draft, but the cooling is probably insignificant. > > 5) There are some other minor editorial changes. > > 6) The reference for the ICOADS data set is: > Worley, S.J., Woodruff, S.D., Reynolds, R.W., Lubker, S.J. and Lott, N. > (2005) ICOADS Release 2.1 Data and Products. Int. J. Climatol. 25: > 823-842 > > 7) I have added an acknowledgement to my funding body. > > Figures 1 and 3. In the captions you could refer to the Hadley Centre > SST data as HadSST2 > > Figure 4. There is some erroneous text saying "T T Tanel" and "tt n > Tanel". The lines indicating where the zoomed section of the plot fits > into the full time series doesn't correspond to the period covered by > the zoomed section. I would also suggest changing 'derived from US' to > 'which can be positively identified as coming from US'. > > > I've initiated our approval process here. Two out of the four people who > need to see the paper have already gone through it and I've rolled their > comments in with mine - their principle concern was with the abstract > addressed in my comment (1) above and in the attached draft). I'm doing > everything I can to speed things up. The fact that its for Nature and > potentially newsworthy is likely to help. However, I can't get final > approval to submit the paper until I have the paper in its final form. > If we have a final draft on Monday, its possible that I'll have that > approval in the week. > > Thanks, > > John > > > On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 16:22 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: >> >> Dave, >> Basically happy. A few points, some of the same again. >> Submit when ready! Have a good weekend! >> >> 1. Maybe John can add something on this. This refers to the final >> paragraph. Skeptics will say - why does it take a year to sort this >> out! >> Reviewers might as well! I know John has schedules for work, so >> this has to be fit in. It could probably be accommodated by saying, >> it takes time because we are waiting to add in more UK WW2 SST >> measurements which are being digitized. These will improve the 40-45 >> period. I still think these SST values in 41-44 are too high. I'm >> hoping >> the more obs will reduce the level. >> >> 2. The drop of 0.4K in Aug45 in the global mean must mean the >> drop in SST in Aug45 is of the order of 0.8K. It doesn't look this >> much >> - in fact looking at Figs 1 and 2, it looks about the 0.5 in Fig 2. I >> would >> suggest you say the drop in Fig 1 is 0.3 and not 0.4. >> >> The global average is roughly 0.6*SST and 0.4*land. If the drop is >> 0.5 >> in SST it has be 0.3 in the combined. 0.5 is about one tick mark, >> which >> is roughly what it is. >> >> 3. I still think it would be good to say the ENSO 'part' in Figure 1 >> looks >> very like the smoothed SOI series based on Tahiti and Darwin. >> Indeed >> you could go along this and pick off dates for El Nino and La Nina. >> >> 4. For reference (i) I think Trenberth et al - the chapter 3 from the >> IPCC >> AR4 is what you should reference - as opposed to the Technical >> Summary. >> >> In a letter to Nature - you could say this is an analysis of the >> most >> studied series in climatology. Thousands of people have looked at the >> data - and no-one has noticed this before! >> >> Aside - If the skeptics had been doing their job properly and didn't >> start from a >> biased base, they might have spotted it !!! They start from the >> premise that the >> series is wrong. They will be kicking themselves to have missed >> this. >> I've always said it is WW2. >> >> A number have sort of commented upon this is the context of the >> figure >> which is FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 on p703 of WG1 AR4. This is also in the >> SPM Figure 4. The value for the 1940s pops out of the coloured >> envelopes, especially for the oceans. >> The week after next I'll see Daithi Stone who drew this, so ask him >> what will happen >> if Aug45-1950 get raised a little. It could make it worse, unless the >> 50s also go >> up a little. The figure is all based on the 1901-50 period. So if >> that is higher, the >> black obs line drops down. >> >> Finally we are the Climatic Research Unit. Do a global edit and >> get >> rid of Climate Research Unit. It' in Figure 3 caption at least. >> >> Cheers >> Phil > >> > -- > John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB > Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org > > 4970. 2008-01-22 09:46:49 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer , Susan Solomon , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:46:49 +0000 from: Peter Thorne subject: Re: The minus 1 (.png or .ps.gz) to: Stephen Klein On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 14:17 -0800, Stephen Klein wrote: > Peter et al., > > Thanks for this figure updating Santer et al. 2005. Although I am a > bit rusty on this subject, there are two questions I have: > > 1) Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum > (and some negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with > significant surface warming do this, and I can't think of a plausible > physical reason for this. Do people feel the relative cooling of this > layer relative to the surface is robust? > As Steve Sherwood has already said I don't think this result is necessarily robust. Certainly some of the solutions that the automated version of HadAT comes up with do not include such a feature (although the majority still do). If it is real then this region is both near the freezing point and the cut off of shallow convection. So there are possible strawman argument reasons relating to either: 1. A changing relative freq of shallow and deep convection or; 2. That at this point we may see no trend because of the thermal properties of water near its triple-point. These are both very much strawman hypotheses. I have no idea how we would test either of them. Nor do I think we should at this stage. But if anyone wants to take it forward I'll be more than happy to help as I can. > 2) Have you thought of producing a comparison of models to radiosonde > observations for a longer term trend (late 1950s to 1999)? My > recollection (from when I worked with John L. and Dian S.) is that > the tropical radiosonde upper troposphere temperature trends were a > bit stronger over the longer-term. Even if you add this to the paper, > it might be nice to examine a figure of this type for the longer > period to assess models, and perhaps comment on in the paper. I can produce such a figure tomorrow if there is general wish to see it, but as Steve says this longer period does show much more the expected profile behaviour in general, at least for RATPAC-A and HadAT. Perhaps it is another case of cherry-picking in Douglass et al that we would like to highlight and it does tie in with the recent GRL paper that showed choice of period was important in whether a discrepancy existed or not ... Peter -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs 1406. 2008-01-22 16:12:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:12:14 +1300 from: David Thompson subject: Re: the penultimate draft to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Thanks again for the comments. Just so you know: - I have dropped any discussion of the time scale to fix the SST problem. - it's hard to pin down an exact value for the drop, since doing so involves some subjective decisions about averaging periods, etc. So I've opted for your more conservative estimate of 0.3. - I've noted that the equation used to calculate the ENSO fit acts to low pass filter and time lag the input ENSO time series. - Sorry for the rogue 'Climate Research Unit' references; I had searched the text file but not the figures file. The paper has to go through an internal approval process by the Hadley Centre. As soon as that's done I'll send the final submitted version to the group. -Dave On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:22 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Basically happy. A few points, some of the same again. Submit when ready! Have a good weekend! 1. Maybe John can add something on this. This refers to the final paragraph. Skeptics will say - why does it take a year to sort this out! Reviewers might as well! I know John has schedules for work, so this has to be fit in. It could probably be accommodated by saying, it takes time because we are waiting to add in more UK WW2 SST measurements which are being digitized. These will improve the 40-45 period. I still think these SST values in 41-44 are too high. I'm hoping the more obs will reduce the level. 2. The drop of 0.4K in Aug45 in the global mean must mean the drop in SST in Aug45 is of the order of 0.8K. It doesn't look this much - in fact looking at Figs 1 and 2, it looks about the 0.5 in Fig 2. I would suggest you say the drop in Fig 1 is 0.3 and not 0.4. The global average is roughly 0.6*SST and 0.4*land. If the drop is 0.5 in SST it has be 0.3 in the combined. 0.5 is about one tick mark, which is roughly what it is. 3. I still think it would be good to say the ENSO 'part' in Figure 1 looks very like the smoothed SOI series based on Tahiti and Darwin. Indeed you could go along this and pick off dates for El Nino and La Nina. 4. For reference (i) I think Trenberth et al - the chapter 3 from the IPCC AR4 is what you should reference - as opposed to the Technical Summary. In a letter to Nature - you could say this is an analysis of the most studied series in climatology. Thousands of people have looked at the data - and no-one has noticed this before! Aside - If the skeptics had been doing their job properly and didn't start from a biased base, they might have spotted it !!! They start from the premise that the series is wrong. They will be kicking themselves to have missed this. I've always said it is WW2. A number have sort of commented upon this is the context of the figure which is FAQ 9.2 Figure 1 on p703 of WG1 AR4. This is also in the SPM Figure 4. The value for the 1940s pops out of the coloured envelopes, especially for the oceans. The week after next I'll see Daithi Stone who drew this, so ask him what will happen if Aug45-1950 get raised a little. It could make it worse, unless the 50s also go up a little. The figure is all based on the 1901-50 period. So if that is higher, the black obs line drops down. Finally we are the Climatic Research Unit. Do a global edit and get rid of Climate Research Unit. It' in Figure 3 caption at least. Cheers Phil At 00:39 17/01/2008, David Thompson wrote: Hi all, Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the paper. I have iterated with everyone individually, but if you have any more comments or thoughts on the attached version, please let me know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the day Monday (in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then, that would be great (if you need more time, please let me know). The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached as a pdf file. Thanks again.... -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 Hi all, Please find attached the (hopefully) penultimate version of the paper. I have iterated with everyone individually, but if you have any more comments or thoughts on the attached version, please let me know. My hope is to submit the paper by the end of the day Monday (in the US), so if you can get any additional comments to me by then, that would be great (if you need more time, please let me know). The text is attached as a doc and pdf file; the figures are attached as a pdf file. Thanks again.... -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 1121. 2008-01-23 09:04:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:04:56 -0500 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Status of the IPCC '90 graph...?] to: Phil Jones great--thanks Phil, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Do hold off! I'm hopeful (and I know I have been for ages) of Keith and Tim doing their bits for the Wengen paper. They are as we speak. So I hope a paper will be going round in a couple of weeks. I think the Appendix which has this diagram is one of its main selling points. Cheers Phil At 13:24 23/01/2008, you wrote: hey Phil, just wondering in any update in status on this? Should we still hold off doing anything on RC about this? thanks, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Status of the IPCC '90 graph...? Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:57:59 +0100 From: Stefan Rahmstorf [1] To: Rasmus Benestad [2] CC: [3]group@realclimate.org References: [4]<47970935.1070707@met.no> Rasmus, we show a teaser of this curve in our post [5] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/the-weirdest-millennium/ However, it would be great if someone did a post to cover this in more detail. I think we were waiting for a paper by Phil Jones on this? Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [6]www.ozean-klima.de [7] www.realclimate.org -- 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 309. 2008-01-23 10:50:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk date: Wed Jan 23 10:50:42 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: The paper I was talking about to: "Jake Hacker" Jake, This paper is still in draft form, but I will submit soon. It is mostly about China, so ignore that. What is relevant is the parts about London and Vienna at the beginning - and Figures 1-3 and Tables 1-2. Bottom line is that central London does have a UHI of about 1.5 deg C. This however doesn't change over the last 45 years. The rate of warming at all the London sites is the same. 1.5 is the average UHI, but it can be up to nearly 5 but as low as 0 on some days - see the distribution histograms. As I say in the paper the 1.5 isn't wholly a UHI. I reckon some is due to sites where central London is would have been warmer than Rothamsted and Gatwick without London being there. When the UHI came into existence is gradually from Medieval times through to the 19th century. I don't think its magnitude has changed since then. It clearly hasn't since 1960. Whether it will change with climate change is the issue. I don't think it will. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3855. 2008-01-23 11:42:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: a.watkinson@uea.ac.uk, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, i.lorenzoni@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:42:59 +0000 from: Saffron O'Neill subject: Re: [Fwd: Journal of Applied Ecology JAPPL-2007-00728] Dear all Thanks for your comments on this. Resubmission to the Journal of Applied Ecology looks likely. It would be good to all meet at the same time to go over the comments, so we can decide which comments need serious adjustments in the text and subsequently also which sections can be removed. I am busy for the next few weeks, but am free 12th Feb am, 13th/14th Feb all day, 15th pm; or 18th/21st all day. Are any of these times convenient? Saffron Saffron O'Neill wrote: > Hi all > > I have just received the review from the polar bear paper. Unfortunately, > it's been rejected. > > It was sent out to 3 reviewers. On the plus side, one is positive and one > is mainly positive with some reservations. The negative review sees merit > in the approach I think, but (as a polar bear expert himself) has a lot of > unanswered questions. > > I'm pretty sure I can address the comments/questions, although it will > take some substantial revision. I'm not really happy about submitting it > as a 'methodological insight' as these papers have to be 5000 words or > under and we struggled to get this version down to the standard length of > 7000 words. > > As I'm about to hand in my thesis and start the MSc job, I wouldn't be > able start doing revisions for a few weeks yet. > > What are your thoughts (resubmission, submission elsewhere?) > > Saffron > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Journal of Applied Ecology JAPPL-2007-00728 > From: japplecol@BritishEcologicalSociety.org > Date: Wed, January 2, 2008 12:43 pm > To: s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk > Cc: japplecol@BritishEcologicalSociety.org > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 02-Jan-2008 > JAPPL-2007-00728 > Expert assessment of the uncertainties of polar bear population dynamics > under climate change > by O'Neill, Saffron; Osborn, Tim; Hulme, Mike; Lorenzoni, Irene; > Watkinson, Andrew > > Dear Miss O'Neill, > > Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to Journal of Applied > Ecology. I have now received referees' reports. > > Two of the reviewers are generally positive, but suggest that you should > look more broadly at the literature on expert opinion in conservation. > Importantly, Reviewer 1 suggests that you should be more clear about the > broader relevance of the technique that you are using, focussing on the > methodological component of the paper - this is necessary in order for the > paper to be eligible for publication in this journal, as we can only > publish papers of broad management relevance, and with some ecological > content. You might consider whether the paper would be better classified > as a Methological Insight rather than a Standard paper? > > Reviewer 2, on the other hand, raises serious issues about the objectives > of the study, which he finds poorly defined. Particularly seriously, he > questions whether this lack of clarity in the objectives feeds through > into the results you have obtained. This issue clearly must be thoroughly > addressed before the paper can be acceptable for publication. > > Since a new manuscript addressing these concerns would be much altered, it > would need to be re-reviewed. In these circumstances, it is Journal policy > to reject the current manuscript but to invite resubmission once the > problems have been resolved. This carries no commitment to eventual > publication but provides an opportunity for re-evaluation by this Journal. > > I am sorry not to be more positive at this stage but please let me know if > you wish us to consider a new version. Any resubmission should be > submitted to the website > (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jappl-besjournals ) as a new manuscript > within four months of this message. Should you decide to take this option, > you should address the referees' comments in full in the new version of > your manuscript. At resubmission, you should upload a file explaining how > you have responded to the various criticisms and including a > point-by-point description of how you have addressed the various comments. > > Once you have revised your manuscript, go to > http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jappl-besjournals and login to your > Author Center. Click on "Manuscripts with Decisions," and then click on > "Create a Resubmission" located next to the manuscript number. Then, > follow the steps for resubmitting your manuscript. > > I understand that you may be disappointed with this response, but we wish > you success with this manuscript in whatever course you decide to take. > > Yours sincerely, > > Dr E. J. Milner-Gulland > Editor > Journal of Applied Ecology > > *************************************************** > COMMENTS FROM ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Dr E. J. Milner-Gulland > > Associate Editor: 1 > Comments to the Author: > (There are no comments) > > > > *************************************************** > Referees' comments: > > Attached files - please note that where a referee has uploaded comments as > an attachment they will not be copied below. The attachment can be found > in your Author Centre on Manuscript Central by clicking on 'Manuscripts > with decisions' in the 'My manuscripts' list. Locate the correct file in > the table and click on 'view decision letter' in the Status column. A copy > of this letter will display. Scroll to the end of the letter to see a list > of 'Files Attached'. Click on the filename to view the attachment. > > Reviewer: 1 > REPORT FOR THE AUTHORS FROM REFEREE > This paper is an interesting and well-thought out study addressing a > topical issue, determining the potential impacts of climate change on > species. It demonstrates clearly the application of a relatively novel > approach to surveying expert opinion within ecology and that considerably > improves upon the existing methodologies being used. > > Results provide important information for the ecological and wider > community about future polar bear dynamics, and about the importance of > not just relying on statements from single experts or studies. > > My main concern was that the paper does not properly address how such an > approach can or should be used for other applications in ecology. The > authors state ‘It is imperative that expert opinion is elicited through a > systematic and thorough methodology’ but then ‘as portrayal of polar bear > risk in the media is informed by expert opinion’. > > Should such an approach be applied when there is not media interest? For > other species? How might use of this methodology help managers make better > decisions then the current informal methods being used? These questions > should be addressed. > > The manuscript would, I think, be considerably strengthened by inclusion > of a paragraph explicitly stating some guidelines and recommendations for > adapting this style of survey for use with other species or issues. I > would also like to see some more general references to the literature on > expert judgement included (eg. Morgan, 1990, O’Hagan et al 2006, Kaplan > 1999, Walker 2001) and to other studies that have previously used or > addressed the use of expert opinion in ecology (eg. Akcakaya 2000, Martin > 2005, White 2005, …..). The references to expert surveys listed currently > are almost all taken solely from the climate change literature. > > The current terminology used to describe the different types of > uncertainty (eg. between and within expert) is confusing and should be > revised – perhaps more in line with the delineations of uncertainty like > ‘variability’ and ‘incertitude’ used in other studies? (also see comment > in minor points below) > > My general feeling was also that the sections on ‘sea ice’, ‘population > modelling’ and ‘expert surveys’ in the introduction could all be > tightened. Possible suggestions are shortening the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs > of the section on ‘Sea ice and relationship with polar bear ecology’, as > they do not add substantially more to the paper, the mention of contingent > and non-contingent phenomena seems unnecessary, and as most readers will > be familiar with PVA and its limitations, the more relevant parts of the > paragraph on PVA could just be incorporated into the following paragraph. > > > Minor points: > > Page 6, line 22. The authors state’ there are dangers in confusing > knowledge with opinion’. This is true, but not in itself a justification > for using a ‘systematic methodology’ for surveying opinion. The reasons > for using an approach that is (i) systematic, (ii) quantitative and (iii) > involves multiple experts should be explicitly stated. > > Page 6: line 25 append sentence to: ‘…expert opinion about future polar > bear population dynamics. ‘ > > Page 7, para 1: ’ I think this paragraph would read better if the > sentence beginning ‘Expert opinion is of value…’ was placed at the > beginning of the paragraph. For the first sentence, append to ‘…define the > current knowledge and range of uncertainty…The meaning of the second > sentence is also not clear. > > Page 7, para 2: Why are we distinguishing between contingent and > non-contingent phenomena? Explain. Reword the final sentence to > ‘….provide a formal assessment of the current expert opinion on the likely > future…’. > > Page 12, line 13: Use of the term ‘controversial’ here is a bit melodramatic. > > Page 13, line 5: para 2. Include an additional sentence stating what the > Delphi method is, and a reference. > > Page 13, line 24: Replace term ‘controversial’ with ‘not straightforward’ > or a similar phrase. > > Page 19, para 3: The descriptions given between expert and within expert > uncertainty are unclear. Remove the word ‘expression’. Replace with > something more like ‘result of the different scientific understandings of > the individual experts.’ > > In fact, simply referring to the ‘variability between experts’ rather then > ‘between expert uncertainty’ may actually be easier for readers to follow. > The description of within expert uncertainty is likewise very unclear. > > > Page 20, line 1: Include an example in brackets to clarify the type of > ‘simpler’ aggregation methods you are referring to. Eg. Mean, median, etc. > Replace ‘perform better’ with ‘as least as well’. > > Page 20, line 17: ‘The large uncertainties illuminate the difficulties > associated with using expert’. > > No they don’t. The variability or ‘between expert’ uncertainty does > partly, but models and other approaches produce similar ranges of > uncertainty when there is minimal data available. > > The phrase ‘derives from the expression of the scientific understanding of > the individual experts’ > > To ease in comparisons in Figures 4-6, it would be useful to superimpose a > line representing the median average judgment [as in the last box plot] > onto the box plots of the other experts. > > It would also be good to comment on the expert’s perceptions of their own > expertise. Were there any trends between perceived expertise and the type > of responses given? > > The results are particularly compelling when restated as 90% confidence > intervals – ie. the experts were all apparently at least 90% confident > that polar bear populations would not be extinct by 2050, and in most > cases 90% confidence they would not increase etc. > > > References > > Akcakaya, H. R., S. Ferson, et al. (2000). "Making consistent IUCN > classifications under uncertainty." Conservation Biology 14(4): 1001-1013. > > Kaplan, S. and D. Burmaster (1999). "C. How, When, Why to Use All of the > Evidence > doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00388.x." Risk Analysis 19(1): 55-62. > > Martin, T. G., P. M. Kuhnert, et al. (2005). "The power of expert opinion > in ecological models using Bayesian methods: Impact of grazing on birds." > Ecological Applications 15(1): 266-280. > > > Morgan, M. G. and M. Henrion (1990). Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with > uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. New York, Cambridge > University Press. > > O'Hagan, A., C. E. Buck, et al. (2006). Uncertain judgments : eliciting > expert probabilities. West Sussex, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. > > Walker, K. D., J. S. Evans, et al. (2001). "Use of expert judgment in > exposure assessment - Part I. Characterization of personal exposure to > benzene." Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology > 11(4): 308-322. > > White, P. C. L., N. V. Jennings, et al. (2005). "Questionnaires in > ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice." > Journal of Applied Ecology 42(3): 421-430. > > Reviewer: 2 > REPORT FOR THE AUTHORS FROM REFEREE > Review of O’Neill et al. “Expert assessment of the uncertainties of polar > bear population dynamics under climate change” > > The Paper: > The aim of this paper (p7) is to provide an expert assessment of the > future of polar bears under climate warming. > > The assessment is derived from a survey of 10 “experts” in polar bear > biology. > > Participants in the survey were asked to project the future for polar > bears in 5 different geographic regions. Future projections were supposed > to be based upon maps depicting the future sea ice extent and temporal > availability which were provided. > > Results were expressed as the range of values projected by the array of 10 > “experts”. > > General Comments: > > The uneven quality of data available worldwide and the absence of > statistical analyses which could be applied over broad ranges of polar > bear habitat makes the use of expert judgment a valuable tool in > understand the probable futures of polar bears across their range. > Hence, a survey of the judgments of a variety of polar bear experts has > merit as a way to understand where polar bears may be headed as > availability of their sea ice habitat declines. Whereas this approach has > some merit, many factors serve to diminish the value of the outcomes > reported here. Here, I list a couple of general comments. Then, I > provide a few comments specific to elements in the text of this MS. > Hereafter, I refer to this MS as “O’Neill et al”. > > 1. My biggest general concern about O’Neill et al is that there seems to > be an unclear objective which confuses the ability to interpret the > results. It is not clear whether the goal of O’Neill et al. is to > establish how much variation there is in the range of judgments that > different experts might make given a certain set of conditions-the > “specified climate future (line 8 page 8)”, or whether it is to project, > to the extent practicable with expert judgment, the future of polar bears > (line 1 page 8). These are quite different things. There will be > variation among the judgments of experts in both, but the goals are quite > different, and the information provided to the experts as well as the > questions asked would be very different. The pretext of this project > seems to be that O’Neill et al are interested in resolving the apparent > discrepancy between what may be viewed as an alarmist general media > impression of impending disaster for polar bears, a current (as opposed to > a projected) worldwide population which may be in pretty good shape, and > views of at least one global warming naysayer. To address these seemingly > different perspectives, it would be good to know how the judgments of > experts fall out regarding the future. O’Neill et al state on line 23, > page 3, that how various narratives represent the range of views of the > expert community (on the present and likely future status of polar bears) > is their goal. Conversely, they express concern that one participant > (line 22, page 19) may have used other information. If the goal of > O’Neill et al is indeed to project the future for polar bears, the > participants need different instructions. They cannot do this given the > limited information which the O’Neill et al elicitation provided. From > that information, they can only meet the goal of assessing the degree to > which the participants may differ given the same information. The range > of expert views on the future of polar bears is an interesting topic, and > appears to be the goal. The range of views on how a specified future may > affect polar bears is much less interesting and although it seems that is > what O’Neill et al have set their participants up for, it does not address > the perceived discrepancy described in the introduction (page 3:17-21) > 2. Related to #2, this MS fails to take into account the observational > record of sea ice. The participants were asked to project based upon a > specific scenario of temporal/spatial sea ice change, but they were not > explicitly provided any of the data regarding how the ice has changed in > the observational period. Those changes and the observed effects of those > changes are an important part of “judging” what future changes are likely > to be given the range of values projected by climate models. Again, if > the future given a specified future is the goal that is one thing, but if > O’Neill et al are after something like what experts think may be the real > future; that is very different and requires some relevant information from > the past and present. For example, the O’Neill et al defined > “Archipelago” includes Baffin Bay and much of Davis Strait. The > projections in the O’Neill et al scenario provided show little ice change > in these regions despite very great changes there in recent years. In > fact most climate models have a problem projecting the sea ice in Davis > strait, and most show more ice remaining in that region in 100 years than > we have there now. Most of the experts do not know that, but if they were > told that, it might alter how they responded to the sea ice scenarios > presented. If the “experts” are to “judge” what the future may bring to > that region, they need some context, not just one view of modeled future > sea ice. In general, the fact that observed changes in the sea ice have > been faster than forecasted must be a part of any effort to project the > future of polar bears. But, it was not included here. > 3. In the discussion, O’Neill et al appear to view their results as if > they have addressed the real future for polar bears rather than some > specified future. I don’t think they have. Hence, my biggest concern is > that I don’t think the approach outlined here has gotten O’Neill et al to > where they think they are. As it is, this MS describes a methodology > which could be useful if conducted a bit differently. It does not, > however, provide the best judgments of the experts regarding the likely > future for polar bears. > > Specific Comments: Here, I make a limited number of specific comments > regarding the text of O’Neill et al. > 1. Given the nature of the survey and the expectation that the experts > comment on a “specified” sea ice future, the title of O’Neill et al should > be something like “An approach to using expert knowledge to assess > uncertainties in future polar bear populations”. This MS expresses the > gist of how such a survey might be conducted, but it doesn’t really > provide a sense of the range of expert judgments of what the real future > might be. > 2. Due to the rapidly changing information base (including updated climate > model outputs) any MS like this one needs to specify clearly the date when > it was compiled. Else, it will just contribute to confusion such as the > confusion raised by Lomborg and others when they claim polar bear > populations have grown and are not threatened by declining sea ice. > Lomborg confuses the fact that protections from over hunting which went > into effect beginning in the late 60’s and early 70’s, allowed bear > numbers to grow into the 90’s; with the fact that declining spatiotemporal > availability of sea ice, polar bear security now is, in at least some > regions, threatened. Without clearly specifying time frames of reference, > similar confusion could result form a result such as this. Most polar > bear experts, for example, would have a more dire assessment of the future > for polar bears now than they did only a year ago. > 3. On page 2:10-12 of the MS, O’Neill et al state that “Negative impacts > of climatic warming on polar bears have been suggested, but cannot be > quantified as no models yet exist to analyze the relationship between > polar bear population dynamics and climate change”. It is not clear to me > what constitutes “models” in this context, but detailed data and analyses > relating specific changes in life history traits of polar bears to > changing sea ice conditions, were available for the Hudson Bay region when > O’Neill et al was in preparation. > 4. Page 3:8-9, where in the paper is the foundation of this statement. > Whereas I and most polar bear experts would agree, this seems to be a > stand-a-lone conclusion of O’Neill et al rather than a conclusion which > can be derived from the survey results. Clarify where this came from. > 5. Page 4:4-7, it is not clear that this paper really addresses either of > these issues. This is a nice statement about critical issues, but they > are not addressed here. > 6. Page 4:15, the perennial sea ice has been declining at around 8.6% per > decade, not sure where this 4.7 came from. > 7. Pages 4 and 5: there is a smattering of biological material here, but > it is limited, incomplete, and misleading. And, it is not used in the > remainder of the document, so not clear why it is here. > 8. Page 5:13, what does the first clause mean? > 9. Page 6-7, I find the description of opinion and judgment in O’Neill et > al confusing at best. Please define more explicitly. Are you after > opinions or expert judgments. I have many opinions, but I try as hard as > I can to keep them out of my judgments. > 10. Page 7 what is this “contingent versus non-contingent phenomena? You > make a big point of what they are here but never refer to them again. > 11. Page 8:1, why are you interested in the future of polar bear > populations in this context. Why not just assess how expert judgments may > differ regarding the future. The “controversy” in the press is a > manufactured controversy created by people like Lomborg, who has been > totally discredited as making statements simply to create doubt > (http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitAchap1.htm). Scientific papers should > be above delving into such controversies. This question is important, and > expert judgments may be a way to address it; regardless of what the > general media or global warming naysayers may say about it. > 12. Page 8:21, no March in Figure 1. > 13. Page 9:23, which GCMs had ensembles of projections? IN general, do > not use terms like most, or several or---, just state the number. In this > paper, there are only 10 participants and there are only a few models, say > how many when you are referring to a limited set of them. > 14. Page 9:25, why did you use these models of the 21 which were available > in the AR-4? What was your selection criterion. > 15. Page10:10, why pick one model. Why not use the mean of your ensemble > to build your projection of sea ice? > 16. page 12: 7-10, what does this mean? Need to restate. > 17. Page 15:1, in view of the extreme range of estimates provided by the > experts, it may have been useful to censor the upper and lower extremes in > each category of answer. Given that polar bear biology is pretty well > known and that their dependence on the sea ice for foraging is absolute, > this sort of range suggests that something is going on other than a > difference in judgment of how much a given decline is likely to affect > bears in a particular area. > 18. Page 17:24-24--page 18:1-3, whereas I agree with this statement, there > is no real support for this statement in the MS. This appears to be a > conclusion of O’Neill et al. It should be stated as such, or cited or > otherwise substantiated. > 19. Page 18:23-25. This harkens back to the difference between polar > bears in a future you specified as opposed to projections based on what we > think the real future may be. See general comments. > 20. Page 19:16-25, this is a problem for this method. I am pretty sure > that each participant imbued his/her responses with other information and > knowledge about sea ice, sea ice projections, and observations to a > greater or lesser degree. In a survey like this, where you tried to get > the participants to judge based only on your inputs, some uncontrollable > ancillary information is going to creep in. This probably contributed > quite a bit to the range of answers you received. > 21. Page 20: 1-7, what does this mean? > 22. Page 20:17, I think the large uncertainties are at least partly due to > the design wherein some participants tried less successfully than others > to limit their judgments to your prescribed future. Surely, there will > always be a range of answers to any question wherein there is uncertainty, > but in this case, I think your range of answers was partly dependent on > different degrees of adhering to your future. Also, you had a huge range > in expertise in your “expert” pool. Finally, you included one expert who > has very publicly taken a political approach to the effects of sea ice > loss on polar bears. > 23. Page 22: 14-18, again, this seems to be a conclusion of O’Neill et al. > However, as written, it is not clear that it is not a conclusion of the > experts polled. Reword this to put it in proper context. > > In conclusion, I find that O’Neill et al describes a potentially useful > methodology. With clarification of the goals, better descriptions of the > methods, and more careful formation of conclusions, this could be a useful > paper. > I hope you find these comments helpful. > > Steven C. Amstrup > > > Reviewer: 3 > REPORT FOR THE AUTHORS FROM REFEREE > Manuscript reference number: JAPPL-2007-00728 > Authors: O'Neill, Saffron; Osborn, Tim; Hulme, Mike; Lorenzoni, Irene; > Watkinson, Andrew > Title: Expert assessment of the uncertainties of polar bear population > dynamics under climate change > > > Expert elicitation is gaining prominence in ecology and natural resource > management as a way of capturing information and the uncertainty around > this information. Using a remote survey Delphi approach, O’Neill et al > elicit information on polar bear dynamics with respect to climate change – > a flagship species in the climate change debate. Of ten experts, most > predicted a significant decline in polar bear population size and range as > a result of climate change, although there was considerable variability > between experts. > > This paper is an excellent demonstration of the power of expert opinion to > inform us on complex ecological interactions, where limited resources and > the need to make urgent conservation management decisions, precludes the > sole reliance on long-term empirical studies. Indeed, with finite > research resources, the skilful elicitation and use of expert knowledge > will play a major component in endangered species conservation and > management in the future. This is a well executed and competent use of > expert knowledge on a topic of considerable public and scientific > interest. > > My only criticism of this paper is that it does not take advantage of > Bayesian methods and make full use of the expert information, informing > empirical data, to produce posterior estimates which capture the > uncertainty in expert knowledge (prior information) and the uncertainty in > the empirical data (likelihood). Perhaps this could form another study. > Recent examples of this approach include Crome et al 1996 and Martin et al > 2005. > > Minor comments > Page 2, line 2. Delete “(the first ever….)”. This is not the first survey > of expert opinion. Perhaps you mean, the first ever taken for polar bears > based on sea-ice data? > > Page 2. line 21, 22. What does decline in population mean? Decline in > population size, number of populations, sub-populations? > > References > Crome, F. H. J., M. R. Thomas, and L. A. Moore. 1996. A novel Bayesian > approach to assessing impacts of rain forest logging. Ecological > Applications 6:1104-1123. > > Martin, T. G., P. M. Kuhnert, K. Mengersen, and H. P. Possingham. 2005. > The power of expert opinion in ecological models using Bayesian methods: > Impact of grazing on birds. Ecological Applications 15:266-280. > > *************************************************** > > Reply to: > > Gillian Kerby > Managing Editor, Journal of Applied Ecology > e-mail:japplecol@BritishEcologicalSociety.org > phone: +44 (0)1780 752833 fax: +44 (0)1780 752833 > > British Ecological Society > 26, Blades Court, Deodar Road > Putney, London SW15 2NU, UK. > phone: +44 (0) 208 8770740 > > *************************************************** > > The Journal of Applied Ecology is published by the British Ecological > Society, a limited company, registered in England No. 1522897, and a > registered charity No. 281213. Information or advice given to members or > others by or on behalf of the Society is given on the basis that no > liability attaches to the Society, its Council members, Officers, or > representatives in respect thereof. > > Journal information and instructions for contributors: > http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/jpe > and www.BritishEcologicalSociety.org > Submissions to: > http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jappl-besjournals > > *************************************************** > The Journal of Applied Ecology is published by the British Ecological > Society, a limited company, registered in England No. 1522897, and a > registered charity No. 281213. Information or advice given to members or > others by or on behalf of the Society is given on the basis that no > liability attaches to the Society, its Council members, Officers, or > representatives in respect thereof > > 1482. 2008-01-25 10:00:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jan 25 10:00:17 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: FYI: Climate Talk's Cancellation Splits a Town to: "Catherine Drury" Catherine, A few people here in CRU have read the book. Some said they would recommend it to some of the enquiries we get. It is important to raise the whole issue with the young and the book ought to succeed in this. The story below may be of interest. We have never got this response in the UK. It aptly highlights some of the prejudices within the US that we occasionally here about. Several learned societies in the US (American Geophysical Union, American Met Society and the Geological Society) have put out statements on climate change (good statements and well argued) in the last few months. Several US Senators and their henchman have been questioning these, saying that they are written by a few and are not representative of the majority of society members! I wish you luck with the book. Best Regards Phil Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:01:41 -0600 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Climate Talk's Cancellation Splits a Town X-UEA-Spam-Score: 3.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: +++ X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/us/17climate.html?ref=science January 17, 2008 Climate Talk's Cancellation Splits a Town [] Kurt Wilson/The Missoulian Steven W. Running, Nobel laureate climate scientist at the University of Montana. By JIM ROBBINS CHOTEAU, Mont. - School authorities' cancellation of a talk that a Nobel laureate climate researcher was to have given to high school students has deeply divided this small farming and ranching town at the base of the east side of the Rocky Mountains. The scholar, Steven W. Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, was scheduled to speak to about 130 students here last Thursday about his career and the global changes occurring because of the earth's warming. Dr. Running was a lead author of a global warming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 400-member United Nations body that shared last year's Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. But when some residents complained that his presentation here would be one-sided because no opposing view would be offered, the superintendent of Choteau School District No. 1, Kevin St. John, canceled it. Dr. Running was surprised. "Disbelief was the primary reaction," he said in a telephone interview. "I've never been canceled before. But it was almost comical. I had a pretty candid discussion with the superintendent and the school board, and they said there were some conservative citizens who didn't want me to speak." Mr. St. John said that numerous residents had complained to school board members and that they in turn had suggested that the program be called off. Those who complained misunderstood the content of the talk, Mr. St. John said, but there was no time to explain to all of them that Dr. Running was a leading scientist rather than an agenda-driven ideologue. "It was my failure to articulate who he is and what he was here for," the superintendent said. "He's a Nobel scientist, highly distinguished, but people thought he was something else. Academic freedom is very important here, and science education is very important here." Still, as in much of the West, Choteau is home to a deep-seated mistrust of environmentalism, which many here see as a threat to their agricultural way of life. The town has also been largely on the pro-development side of a long and sometimes bitter battle over whether to exploit oil and gas reserves along the wild Rocky Mountain front or to preserve it primarily for wilderness and wildlife. Finally, there is the raw politics of the matter. Dr. Running specializes in an issue associated with Mr. Gore, not a popular figure among many in this predominantly Republican town. But Mr. St. John said he had in no way intended to censor Dr. Running, who in fact presented a previously scheduled evening lecture on climate change at the high school the day he was to have spoken during school hours. Only a handful of students were among the 140 or so people at the evening talk, however, because it coincided with a high school basketball game, a big source of entertainment in small-town Montana. Dr. Running did not mention the cancellation or the resulting controversy in his presentation, "The Five Stages of Climate Grief," which was sponsored by the Sonoran Institute, an environmental group. The first two of the five stages are denial and anger, Dr. Running said in the phone interview, so he understands the opposition to his addressing the students. The controversy here intensified when a local student's article criticizing school officials was published Monday on the student-created "Class Act Page" of The Great Falls Tribune, a statewide daily. "I was insulted as a high school student prepared to enter the world I need to hear both sides of the story," the student, Kip Barhaugh, 17, said in an interview Tuesday. "I don't feel there is another side. Global warming is not a controversial issue, it's a fact. We need to be prepared to deal with it." People on Main Street here were divided over the cancellation. Melody Martinsen, the editor of The Choteau Acantha, a local weekly, said that while she rarely received letters to the editor, "this week I have nine and seven are on the subject, and they are all chastising the school board." Kirk Moore, the owner of a farm and ranch store, is a school board member who favored canceling the talk. But he declined to say why. "No comment," Mr. Moore said. "Go talk to the superintendent." Jill Owen, the owner of an organic grocery and bookstore, wrote a letter to the school board that opposed the cancellation. "We were disappointed the school board would turn down an opportunity for a Nobel laureate to speak," Ms. Owen said. "We need to inspire kids in math and science, and it would have been great." Dr. Running, 57, said high school students were an important audience for his message about climate change. "Our generation caused the problem," he said, "and I want to talk to high schools because they are the generation that will solve the problem. And we can't solve the problem without a free discussion." Copyright 2008 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1284. 2008-01-25 10:57:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones, Phil" , "Kennedy, John" date: 25 Jan 2008 10:57:19 -0500 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: [Fwd: FW: Attn: Hadley Centre] to: David Parker David, Phil, Don't make any particular deal about this - I'm sure it was just a slip of the pen. However, these are high profile analyses and having emails like this floating around could result in unnecessary controversy. A little more care could be warranted. Gavin On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 08:10, David Parker wrote: > Phil > > I have chased this up. Sarah is on night-shift tonight (you are right > about the shift-working!) and one of her colleagues has left her a > message to find out who provided the words she sent - Sarah isn't a > climate scientist and will have consulted someone else. I wouldn't have > provided such words! > > Regards > > David > > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 09:14 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > Gavin, > > No real idea what's going on here. I would like to believe that Sarah at > > the Met Office Customer Centre has had some discussions with the > > Hadley Centre people on this, so cc'ing John Kennedy and David Parker to > > see if they can find out. > > What could be a factor is that the Customer Centre has to respond > > to questions and in a certain time frame. I would have thought that this > > related to MO and MOHC datasets and what is said on the MO web site, > > so shouldn't cover datasets from other groups. > > CRU wouldn't have responded like this, but would have been > > along the lines > > of an email I sent to you and Jim a week ago. There are issues in the Arctic > > with warming and little data from the Arctic Ocean that I've > > mentioned before. > > There has been a lot of discussion on numerous blog sites about > > differences > > between the various datasets on the ranking of recent warm years. One simple > > thing I thought about a few days and then didn't have time to do > > was to compare > > the HadCRUT3, NCDC and GISS analyses of global T with Pearson and > > Spearman-rank correlations. All three groups getting the ranks > > exactly the same > > is the most strict test I can think of given the uncertainties that > > exist in all three > > analyses. > > Another non-scientific issue is that Sarah is probably part of > > a group working shifts, > > so responses from different members could be variable depending who > > you get. The > > range of questions could be large, so some or all may not be aware of all the > > history of the issue. I can't keep up with all this and don't look > > at most of the > > blog sites that discuss the temperature record - nor do I want to! > > I would have sent this paper as well - attached. NCDC has a new paper > > coming out in J. Climate, with a newish method. When this appears this > > will reopen the debate, as they will raise (but not allow for) the issue that > > SSTs may be 0.1 to 0.2 too cold recently due to recent dominance of buoys > > vs ships. NCDC are also doing more infilling, but I think keeping > > clear of sea-ice areas. > > > > As an aside, I think HadCRUT3 could be underestimating recent > > warming - but > > only because the Arctic sea ice is disappearing quickly. I've a few > > ideas of how > > to address this - using ERA-40 possibly? I may have said earlier > > that with the figures > > for Ch 3 of WG1 AR4 we noticed that HadSST2 is biased warm in the Arctic seas > > north of 65N - so the plot just shows Arctic land N of 65N. > > > > I am away all next week. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > >Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:48:39 -0500 (EST) > > >Subject: [Fwd: FW: Attn: Hadley Centre] > > >From: contrib@realclimate.org > > >To: enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk > > >Cc: "Phil Jones" , > > > akasket@hotmail.com > > >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.5 > > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.8 > > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > > > >I was passed this email that you sent in response to a query from a member > > >of the public. While pointing out correctly the differences between the > > >procedures used in the GISTEMP product and the Had/CRU analysis, I am a > > >little puzzled as to why you felt the need to suggest that the GISTEMP > > >analysis was not 'honest'. This seems to go beyond the normal bounds of a > > >professional response. > > > > > >Do you have any substance to back up such a claim? My colleagues at GISS > > >on the contrary seem to be exemplary in pointing out the differences in > > >techniques and their consequences. For instance, the graph available here: > > > > > >http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ArcticEffect.pdf > > > > > >shows the increasing impact of changing temperatures in the Arctic on the > > >analysis. The statements in http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ > > > > > >"Our analysis differs from others by including estimated temperatures up > > >to 1200 km from the nearest measurement station (7). The resulting spatial > > >extrapolations and interpolations are accurate for temperature anomalies > > >at seasonal and longer time scales at middle and high latitudes, where the > > >spatial scale of anomalies is set by Rossby waves (7). Thus we believe > > >that the remarkable Arctic warmth of 2005 is real, and the inclusion of > > >estimated arctic temperatures is the primary reason for our rank of 2005 > > >as the warmest year. " > > > > > >also seem clear enough. Further discussions are made in the technical > > >literature that is available at the GISS site. > > > > > >I hope that you can correct a possibly misleading impression that could be > > >left. > > > > > >Cordially, > > > > > >Gavin Schmidt > > > > > >PS. I am not connected with the GISTEMP group except through working in > > >the same building. > > > > > > > Subject: FW: Attn: Hadley Centre > > > > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:10:55 +0000 > > > > From: enquiries@metoffice.gov.uk > > > > To: akasket@hotmail.com > > > > > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email. > > > > > > > > Your comment #221 in the RealClimate tread was in response to #218. > > > > This particular thread was concerned with the observations of > > > > temperature rise and not with the Hadley Centre climate model. The HC > > > > climate model of course has polar amplification just as every other > > > > climate model does. > > > > > > > > The point was the interpolation of existing observational data over the > > > > polar regions. If you look at the raw observations that GISS uses you > > > > can see how little data they are basing an interpolation on. > > > > > > > > Regardless of what they consider the correct spatial length scale for > > > > observations, the Arctic sees large regional changes in temperature, > > > > which are being glossed over with a large correlation length. > > > > > > > > The Had/CRU treatment of the observations simply states that the error > > > > is greater due to lacking data, something GISS are not honest about. > > > > There are no EXTRA observations that GISS has access to, that Had/CRU > > > > does not. Thus there is no reason to believe GISS' observations vs > > > > Had/CRU observations of recent global temperature rise when the errors > > > > are taken into account. > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sarah > > > > > > > > Customer Centre, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, > > > > United Kingdom. Tel: 0870 900 0100 Fax: 0870 900 5050 Email: > > > > enquiries@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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4725. 2008-01-26 18:44:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 18:44:24 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: wengen paper progress to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, wahle@alfred.edu, francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca Hi Phil, Gene, Francis and Keith, I've now finished putting Gene's and Francis' contributios together with some text of mine into section 3 of the "Wengen" paper. Everything has been done with tracked changes so that you can follow (and undo if necessary) what I've done. Gene -- this is the same as Friday's version except that I have now continued from page 34 to the end of your contribution with a few further suggested changes. Phil -- I've also had time to comment on the ice core section, so there are some suggested edits there too. Francis -- your contribution forms section 3.4.1. I included the edits that I had previously sent you... so please see my previous email if you want to undo any of them. Is the Lee et al. paper out yet? If so, could you send the full citation? Keith -- when you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the sections 3.2 and 3.3 that I added on CPS methods and on the pseudo-proxy approach to see if they read ok. Cheers Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_july05_2008_furtherosbornedits3.doc" 4075. 2008-01-27 21:19:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:19:41 -0500 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: wengen paper progress AND new position stating August to: , , Hi Tim (and Phil and Keith): Thanks, Tim, for the work on this. I've looked things over briefly, and have booked time next weekend to get to it in earnest. It's quite a job you've done to put all the pieces together. One question, and to Phil and Keith also, is whether you see/saw significant difference between the results I'm reporting from my work with Caspar and those reported by Francis and his co-workers. I will look for this, of course, but want also to check with you. Caspar says he doesn't think there should be any problem, but I'd also like your opinion. And, of course, difference can be a good thing too... I'm sorry that I can't look at the text sooner, but we have a major event going on here (and at 1200 other universities and colleges in the US) this week. It is called "Focus the Nation", and is a major effort to stimulate the political landscape to take climate change issues seriously -- especially with our presidential "primaries" going on, and a major number of the state voting on Feb. 5. I am significantly involved in this as Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, so my time is pretty limited for the next 6 days. Finally, you may have heard that I have accepted a scientist position with the NOAA Paleoclimate Branch. I will be starting in August, after I complete Spring term here at Alfred and have the chance to move and get settled back in Colorado. I am excited to make this move, and have the chance to do more significant focusing on my research than I've been able to do during this academic year. Below is a copy of the e-announcement released by NOAA. Peace, Gene -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New scientist at the Paleoclimatology Branch Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:41 -0500 From: David Easterling To: _NESDIS NCDC All /w PB & Contractors It is with pleasure that we announce that Dr. Gene Wahl currently at Alfred University in NY has accepted our offer, and will join the Paleoclimatology Branch in Boulder this coming August. We are very lucky to have Gene join us. He is an expert in climate reconstructions of the past millennium using tree rings and multi-proxy data networks. He has pioneered new methods in this area, testified on this topic for Congress, and participates in the PAGES focus on this theme. Gene began his paleo career in palynology, and completed his PhD on pollen analysis with Margaret Davis at the U. of Minn, one of the pioneers of paleoecology. In this area he has worked with transfer functions and analog techniques, methods relevant to all our fossil count data. Finally, Gene brings expertise in the statistical analysis of climate data, including new methods to compare paleoclimate and model data, an area that will be of benefit not only in paleo but also to the Scientific Services Division and NCDC in general. -- David R. Easterling, Ph.D Chief, Scientific Services Division NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 V: +1 828 271 4675 F: +1 828 271 4328 David.Easterling@noaa.gov -- David M. Anderson NOAA Paleoclimatology Branch Chief and Director, World Data Center for Paleoclimatology NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 325 Broadway, E/CC23, Boulder, CO, 80305-3328 Tel: (303) 497-6237 ________________________________ From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Sat 1/26/2008 1:44 PM To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Wahl, Eugene R; francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Subject: wengen paper progress Hi Phil, Gene, Francis and Keith, I've now finished putting Gene's and Francis' contributios together with some text of mine into section 3 of the "Wengen" paper. Everything has been done with tracked changes so that you can follow (and undo if necessary) what I've done. Gene -- this is the same as Friday's version except that I have now continued from page 34 to the end of your contribution with a few further suggested changes. Phil -- I've also had time to comment on the ice core section, so there are some suggested edits there too. Francis -- your contribution forms section 3.4.1. I included the edits that I had previously sent you... so please see my previous email if you want to undo any of them. Is the Lee et al. paper out yet? If so, could you send the full citation? Keith -- when you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the sections 3.2 and 3.3 that I added on CPS methods and on the pseudo-proxy approach to see if they read ok. Cheers Tim 240. 2008-01-28 03:28:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:28:36 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: RE: wengen paper progress AND new position stating August to: "Wahl, Eugene R" Gene, Congratulations on the new job with the paleo group in Boulder. I'm currently in Boulder at a meeting. I'll be here all the week and leave for home on Friday. Francis will be here as well. Caspar should be also. He's not on the IDAG group, but I think he's attending. I've been through what Tim has done and it looks OK. We're under a bit of pressure from Thorsten and Larry (PAGES and EPRI) to get this whole thing off. Next weekend will be fine though. The three of us in CRU will have a good go the first week of Feb. Keith still needs to add in the tree-ring bit. Keith's arranged with the Holocene to get the whole thing reviewed quickly, so we'll pick up time. It seems though that Larry wants something to justify his funding of the Wengen meeting. When looking at the draft next weekend, look also at the Figures you supplied. Most are OK, but if you can send the one that is a bit blurry - and most detailed in another format that would be good. Cheers Phil > Hi Tim (and Phil and Keith): > > Thanks, Tim, for the work on this. I've looked things over briefly, and > have booked time next weekend to get to it in earnest. It's quite a job > you've done to put all the pieces together. > > One question, and to Phil and Keith also, is whether you see/saw > significant difference between the results I'm reporting from my work with > Caspar and those reported by Francis and his co-workers. I will look for > this, of course, but want also to check with you. Caspar says he doesn't > think there should be any problem, but I'd also like your opinion. And, > of course, difference can be a good thing too... > > I'm sorry that I can't look at the text sooner, but we have a major event > going on here (and at 1200 other universities and colleges in the US) this > week. It is called "Focus the Nation", and is a major effort to stimulate > the political landscape to take climate change issues seriously -- > especially with our presidential "primaries" going on, and a major number > of the state voting on Feb. 5. I am significantly involved in this as > Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, so my time is pretty limited for the > next 6 days. > > > Finally, you may have heard that I have accepted a scientist position with > the NOAA Paleoclimate Branch. I will be starting in August, after I > complete Spring term here at Alfred and have the chance to move and get > settled back in Colorado. I am excited to make this move, and have the > chance to do more significant focusing on my research than I've been able > to do during this academic year. > > Below is a copy of the e-announcement released by NOAA. > > Peace, Gene > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New scientist at the Paleoclimatology Branch > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:41 -0500 > From: David Easterling > To: _NESDIS NCDC All /w PB & Contractors > > It is with pleasure that we announce that Dr. Gene Wahl currently > at Alfred University in NY has accepted our offer, and will join the > Paleoclimatology Branch in Boulder this coming August. > We are very lucky to have Gene join us. He is an expert in climate > reconstructions of the past millennium using tree rings and multi-proxy > data networks. He has pioneered new methods in this area, testified on > this topic for Congress, and participates in the PAGES focus on this > theme. Gene began his paleo career in palynology, and completed his PhD > on pollen analysis with Margaret Davis at the U. of Minn, one of the > pioneers of paleoecology. In this area he has worked with transfer > functions and analog techniques, methods relevant to all our fossil > count data. Finally, Gene brings expertise in the statistical analysis > of climate data, including new methods to compare paleoclimate and > model data, an area that will be of benefit not only in paleo but also to > the > Scientific Services Division and NCDC in general. > > -- > David R. Easterling, Ph.D > Chief, Scientific Services Division > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center > 151 Patton Avenue > Asheville, NC 28801 > V: +1 828 271 4675 > F: +1 828 271 4328 > David.Easterling@noaa.gov > > > -- > David M. Anderson > NOAA Paleoclimatology Branch Chief and Director, World Data Center for > Paleoclimatology > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center > 325 Broadway, E/CC23, Boulder, CO, 80305-3328 > Tel: (303) 497-6237 > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: Sat 1/26/2008 1:44 PM > To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Wahl, Eugene R; > francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca > Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > Subject: wengen paper progress > > > > Hi Phil, Gene, Francis and Keith, > > I've now finished putting Gene's and Francis' contributios together with > some text of mine into section 3 of the "Wengen" paper. Everything has > been done with tracked changes so that you can follow (and undo if > necessary) what I've done. > > Gene -- this is the same as Friday's version except that I have now > continued from page 34 to the end of your contribution with a few further > suggested changes. > > Phil -- I've also had time to comment on the ice core section, so there > are some suggested edits there too. > > Francis -- your contribution forms section 3.4.1. I included the edits > that I had previously sent you... so please see my previous email if you > want to undo any of them. Is the Lee et al. paper out yet? If so, could > you send the full citation? > > Keith -- when you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at > the sections 3.2 and 3.3 that I added on CPS methods and on the > pseudo-proxy approach to see if they read ok. > > Cheers > > Tim > > > > > > 3081. 2008-01-28 16:22:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:22:23 -0000 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: [ukcip08-pmg] awareness raising workshop slides to: "Anna Steynor" , "UKCIP08" , "Sexton, David" , "Humphrey, Kathryn \(CEOSA\)" , "C G Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" Thanks for sending these, Anna. I am sending back some quick comments as I think you have a workshop coming up very soon. Slide 10: bullet 2 - add variability, but delete trends (as 30y climate is assumed to be stationary), bullet 5 - add 2 is like, and the variability around that typical day" Slide 21: would prefer that the term "internal" isnt use as this will confuse with internal variability - same comment applies to some later slides. Suggest a slide before this one to show the 3 sources of uncertainty - variability/chaos, modelling and emissions. Slide 29: add "variants" Slode 30: Most of the weighting of the model variants will come from how well it does recent climate (61-90) - the fig seems to suggest it is how well it does the trend (which is part of it but not most imp) Slide 33: delete internal in bullett one Slide 34: instead of "added in" which makes it sound as if the other models were treated as just one of the MOHC family, might be better to say "....other IPCC models are incorporated into the overall uncertainty estimate" Slide 36: same comment Slide 37: "based on our current understanding, modelling and methodology, there is a % prob". Couldn't work out what the dot at 3.4 represents, or indeed the line from 1.3 - 4.8 along the x-axis? Slide 38: Please delete quote from Descartes - we expressly don't want users to follow what is most probable, but to use the whole of the PDF. Slide 39: I like the distinction, but prefer inductive to subjective, and prefer "strength of evidence" to belief, which sound a bit religious. Slide 41: OK, its not objective in the dice way, but does use a formal scientific methodology. Didn't underrstand the last bullet which seems to be more associated with emissions, which is NOT part of the probabilistic climate projection. Suggest delete. Slide 42: again, would say evidence rather than belief. Slide 44: bullet 2 ....change for a specific probability. "direction of change"? of course we have seen the prob can stretch across both directions (eg summer ppn). Slide 46: suggest delete the "per deg C" from the PDF and just use relative probability. add to CDF diagram "prob of change being less than". Slide 47: again, prefer "evidence for" rather than "belief in" Slides 54-60: allowing the build up of bullets to remain through the sequence gives some problems, eg when 25km grid is up at the same time as the 3 marine slides - none of which are at 25km, or have daily max and min temp etc. Slide 63: I know you don't like time series for some reason, but I think "statistical expression" is misleading. I use synthetic daily time series. Slide 64: can we hold on the hourly for a while, please - I think we may need to talk this over again. Looks a lot of commnets, sorry, but most of them are v simple. Please get back if I have not been clear. Only other comment is that you may need to have a few slides on what a PDF and CDF is - there seemed to be a lack of understanding of this at the Oxford wksp and it is absolutely central to the whole scenarios, so worth labouring, I suggest. Roger was down at PMG to send the timetable of the next couple of workshops - could you send me this as I would like to come to one of them please. Cheers Geoff -----Original Message----- From: ukcip08-pmg-bounces@zonda.badc.rl.ac.uk [mailto:ukcip08-pmg-bounces@zonda.badc.rl.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Anna Steynor Sent: 24 January 2008 09:57 To: ukcip08-pmg@zonda.badc.rl.ac.uk Subject: [ukcip08-pmg] awareness raising workshop slides All We took an action at the PMG to send you the ppt slides we are using for the awareness raising workshops. All the material we are giving to the delegates is available from this link http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/ukcip08/08_training.asp Kind Regards Anna Anna Steynor Science Team UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) Oxford University Centre for the Environment (OUCE) South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QY Tel: 01865 285532 Fax: 01865 285710 www.ukcip.org.uk _______________________________________________ ukcip08-pmg mailing list ukcip08-pmg@badc.nerc.ac.uk http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcip08-pmg 1189. 2008-01-29 10:30:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:30:54 -0500 from: Steve Sherwood subject: Chapman conference on water vapor to: Andrew Gettelman , Tapio Schneider , Dian Seidel , randel@ucar.edu, "george.c.reid" , paogorman@yahoo.com, tapio@gps.caltech.edu, Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov, trenbert@ucar.edu, junhong@ucar.edu, rasmus@ucar.edu, grabow@ucar.edu, Chris Bretherton , kursinsk , k.p.shine@reading.ac.uk, betsy.weatherhead@colorado.edu, V Ramanathan , "V. Ramaswamy" , Ben Santer , BONY Sandrine , rlj1001@cam.ac.uk, j.harries@imperial.ac.uk, hasebe@mito.ipc.ibaraki.ac.jp, hvoemel@cmdl.noaa.gov, phh@damtp.cam.ac.uk, Marine.Bonazzola@lmd.jussieu.fr, R.Colman@bom.gov.au, bernd.kaercher@dlr.de, R.MacKenzie@lancaster.ac.uk, klaus.gierens@dlr.de, Eric Jensen , mprather@uci.edu, graham.feingold@noaa.gov, btoon@lasp.colorado.edu, jay.mace@utah.edu, Ed Zipser , "Tim J. Garrett" , J.mcbride@bom.gov.au, Annmarie.Eldering@jpl.nasa.gov, jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr, wulfmeye@uni-hohenheim.de, gerhard.ehret@dlr.de, cyf@aero.jussieu.fr, Andrew Dessler , Frank Wentz , roy.spencer@msfc.nasa.gov, lindzen@wind.mit.edu, Ian Folkins , afridlind@giss.nasa.gov, alexhall@atmos.ucla.edu, Katharine Willett , Bill Rossow , "Bruce A. Wielicki" , cdoswell@hoth.gcn.ou.edu, "Christopher A. Cantrell" , Drew Shindell , Gavin Schmidt , "Folland, Chris" , Graham Farquhar , Roderick@anu.edu.au, carl mears , "jason.evans" , piers@env.leeds.ac.uk, Karl Taylor , Konstantin Vinnikov , "Roger A. Pielke, Sr." , Mark McCarthy , Lisa.Welp@yale.edu, manoj.joshi@metoffice.gov.uk, "Manvendra K. Dubey" , Mark Lawrence , Mark Schoeberl , Mark Webb , Melissa Free , Mike Wallace , dennis@atmos.washington.edu, Mitchell Moncrieff , mzhang@notes.cc.sunysb.edu, Olivier Pauluis , P.May@bom.gov.au, Phil Jones , Rong Fu , rutledge@atmos.colostate.edu, Stephan Fueglistaler , Stephen Klein , Susan Solomon , Thomas Birner , Thomas R Karl , "Thorne, Peter" , Vaughan Phillips , "William G. Read" , Xuhui.Lee@yale.edu, Zhiming Kuang , Joe.W.Waters@jpl.nasa.gov, aclement@rsmas.miami.edu, pzuidema@rsmas.miami.edu, czhang@rsmas.miami.edu, Mark Pagani , Ron Smith , broecker@ldeo.columbia.edu, stan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu, businger@hawaii.edu, anderson@huarp.harvard.edu, h.smit@fz-juelich.de, samuel.j.oltmans@noaa.gov, rebecca.ross@noaa.gov, gille@ncar.ucar.edu, randel@ncar.ucar.edu, randel@cira.colostate.edu, vonderhaar@cira.colostate.edu, stephens@cira.colostate.edu, melfi@umbc.edu, wmson@ucar.edu, pjr@ucar.edu, lawford@umbc.edu, stephen.tjemkes@eumetsat.int, ray@io.as.harvard.edu, h.hendon@bom.gov.au, michael.manton@sci.monash.edu.au, c.jakob@bom.gov.au, ssyum@yonsei.ac.kr, d.wratt@niwa.co.nz, Chris E Forest , jahren@jhu.edu, Darryn Waugh , cban@lzu.edu.cn, Alexey Fedorov , valerie.masson@cea.fr, jpetch@metoffice.com, shderbyshire@metoffice.com, Steve Sherwood Colleagues: Apologies for any duplications, but I wanted to make sure that you have heard about the upcoming AGU/EGU Chapman Conference on Water Vapor in the Climate System, to be held October 20-24 on the big island of Hawaii. A meeting announcement may be found at http://www.agu.org/meetings/chapman/2008/ecall/ which will be updated soon with additional details. We expect to be able to fund travel for a limited number of postdocs and grad students. We hope to see you there. Regards-- -- Steven Sherwood Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu Yale University ph: 203 432-3167 P. O. Box 208109 fax: 203 432-3134 New Haven, CT 06520-8109 http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood 4390. 2008-01-29 10:44:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 10:44:31 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: more thoughts on netCDF CRU TS 3.0 to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, On 29 Jan 2008, at 9:49, Tim Osborn wrote: > Harry, > > a couple more issues arose during my use of these netCDF files... > > (1) would it make the files much larger to use real*4 rather than > int*4 for the data type of the main variable? If so this would be > preferable, because most people will want to do calculations with > the data are reading it that require real values. Reading the data > as integer and then subsequently moving them into a real variable > requires double the memory, and already we're talking > GB just to > read one variable in full! > > (2) real*4 would also allow you to store the data without needing > the scale factor to make them integers. Again, applying the > scaling after reading requires another GB of memory, even if only > temporarily when storing back into the same variable, if using > whole-matrix calculations, i.e., alldata=alldata*scalefactor. > Obviously one could avoid this by running through each element in a > loop, but this is much slower. > > I appreciate that you wanted to replicate the values from the ASCII > files as closely as possible, for the moment, but in the end I > think it better to make the netCDF files as convenient as possible. Point(s) taken. I think I'm happy to abandon the emulation of the traditional format. INT and FLOAT take up the same space (they just have different permissible ranges). When I next start work on the production programs I'll filter through the changes. > (3) when the file is read by a package that uses the UDUNITS > protocol for units of physical data, the time variable is somewhat > weird. e.g. February 2006 in the file appears in ncview as 31- > Jan-06 rather than 1-Feb-06. At first I just glanced at the month > (since the data are monthly) and actually thought Feb 2006 was > missing from the file because it went from 31-Jan-06 to 1-Mar-06 > for the next month. I think this is because in UDUNITS a month is > defined, for the default 'standard' (=='gregorian') calendat as > 365.2425/12 days and therefore some unusual rounding occurs > differently depending on whether it is or isn't a leap year. For > this reason, time units of "days since ------" is preferred to > either "months since -----" or "years since -----". A few details > are given here: > http://cf-pcmdi.llnl.gov/documents/cf-conventions/1.0/ch04s04.html > I wonder whether the simplest workaround would be to change the > time attribute 'calendar' to '365_day'? Alternative, requiring > more calculation, would be to use "days since ------" together with > the "standard" gregorian calendar to define the values; you'd need > to convert months to days taking into account leap/noleap years and > the exact individual month lengths. No one issue with the NetCDF format has caused me greater pain than the time variable, whether we're talking about this work, or QUEST. I really thought I'd avoided the day counting by saying 'months since..', especially as that's a valid format. I hadn't considered that people might use UDUNITS (I don't unless forced because it only caters for a subset of the available calendars), so yes I'll have to cater for its quirks too. Wail! Thanks for spotting it.. I'll think on. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 743. 2008-01-29 11:46:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "'Reinhard Boehm'" , "'Susan Solomon'" , "'Adrian Simmons'" date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:46:42 +0100 from: "Reinhard Boehm" subject: AW: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends to: "'Phil Jones'" , "'Kevin Trenberth'" Phil et al., Here are some remarks on the Vienna part of your paper. I hope not too late! Please change two things: 1) The recent Vienna site ist Wien - Hohe Warte, Wien - Höhe Warte. It is true that we have those "ö"s quite often in our language, but not in this case. 2) I would not call the Hohe Warte site an urban one. In fact it is a 19^th century cottage area with not much changes since then. Therefore it shows no significant increase of the urban excess-temperatures. Because of 2) your comparative discussion of London and Vienna may mislead the reader a bit by letting him believe that the Vienna heat island is so much smaller than the one of London because you mention the Wien-Hohe Warte series to be urban. I know this has nothing to do with your argument that both cities show no trend of the urban excess temperature. In fact, I showed in my 1998 paper that the mean heat island of Vienna (=the difference of the densely built-up city centre vs. the rural comparative stations) is approximately 1.5K as well, thus being near to the one of London. The pity is, that we have no city centre series prior to 1950, thus I did send you only the Hohe Warte plus the longest nearby rural one of Großenzersdorf. I could provide you also with one representative series from the historic centre (the C1-site of the 1998-paper) which at least until 1995 showed no trend vs. the rural sites but a constant surplus of 1.5K. We could update this one to 1997 within a few days if You are interested. Cheers Reinhard P.S.: As to the EI-corrections we have now started to have a final look at what was sent by the Italians (the new question mark in the 1860s they have found). So this has complicated my work which had been already ready for writing the paper. But I hope we will see clearer now in a few weeks whether to once more add another EI-Correction or not. Another reason for my delays is a privat book-project which eats up all my sparetime at home. It will be in German so I have attached the front page and the table of contents - if there is interest of any german speaking member of your team please tell me and I ll send you a copy (in April it should be printed). But this has to be finished by the end of February latest, so there is some hope for the future. Our group is obviously too small to allow the few staff members to work the 40 official hours alone, so the things which are the most interesting ones have to be postponed too often. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Montag, 14. Jänner 2008 17:28 An: Kevin Trenberth Cc: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk; Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov; Reinhard Boehm; Susan Solomon; Adrian Simmons Betreff: Re: Draft paper on Chinese temperature trends Kevin, Will do. I can add in the UHI values for London/Vienna. I normally do the abstract last, but did it earlier this time and didn't really go back to it. The interesting bit for later is the use of SSTs as a rural series and then the comparison of Chinese land with SST. All the jump in the land seems to occur to me in the mid-1970s (the 76/77 climate shift). Cheers Phil At 16:03 14/01/2008, Kevin Trenberth wrote: Hi Phil I'll read it more thoroughly later. My quick impression, more from the abstract than the main text, is that you are defensive and it almost seems that there is a denial of the UHI in part. Yet later in the abstract and nicely in the first two sentences of the conclusions, you recognize that the UHI is real and the climate is different in cities. The point is that the homogenization takes care of this wrt the larger scale record and that UHI is essentially constant at many sites so that it does not alter trends. So I urge you to redo the abstract and be especially careful of the wording. You might even start with: The Urban Heat Island (UHI) is a real phenomenon in urban settings that generally makes cities warmer than surrounding rural areas. However, UHIs are evident at both London and Vienna, but do not contribute to the warming trends over the 20th century because the city influences have not changed much over that time. Similarly, ... Regards Kevin Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, I have mentioned to you all that I've been working on a paper on Chinese temperature trends. This partly started because of allegations about Jones et al. (1990). This shows, as expected, that these claims were groundless. Anyway - I'd appreciate if you could have a look at this draft. I have spelt things out in some detail at times, but I'm expecting if it is published that it will get widely read and all the words dissected. I know you're all very busy and I could have been doing something more useful, but it hasn't taken too long. The European examples are just a simple way to illustrate the difference between UHIs and urban-related warming trends, and an excuse to reference Luke Howard. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [2]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [3]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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\ENTW C.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Heiße Luft-Inhaltsverzeichnis.doc" 176. 2008-01-30 15:18:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:18:51 -0700 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: pdf to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, will do. And regarding TSI, it looks like that 1361 or 1362 (+/-) are going to be the new consensus. All I hear is that this seems to be quite robust. Fodder for the critics: all these modelers, they always put in too much energy - no wonder it was warming - and now they want to reduce the natural component? The SORCE meeting is going to be on that satellite stuff but also about climate connections : Sun-Earth. Tom Crowley is going to be there, Gavin Schmidt, David Rind, and a few others; of course Judith. Thanks for Bo Vinther's manuscript! Caspar On Jan 30, 2008, at 3:12 PM, [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Caspar, OK. Keep me informed. Also I'd like to know more the conclusions of the meeting you're going to on the solar constant. Just that it can change from 1366.5 to 1361!! Cheers Phil Phil, we should hook together on this 1257 event (I call it 1257 because of the timings but its just a bit better than an informed guess). We now have these simulations of contemporary high-lat eruptions and can compare them with low-lat ones. Just a couple thoughts pro high-lat: - climate signal looks better in short and longer term - potential for in-ice-core migration of some sulfur species ... some new work that has been done ... con: - deposition duration - old fingerprints - no high-lat calderas/flows of appropriate size : compare it to Eldgja or Laki, this thing is bigger! - no large ash layers What we need is fingerprinting. I'm participating in a project Icelandic volcanism and climate in the last 2000 years. There we have money to do some chemical fingerprinting. I'm pursuing to get somebody to run these samples. That will be the deciding thing. Remember, instrumentation has dramatically increased in sensitivity, so I think it should be possible. its not that one would have to go dig around too much in the ice cores as the depth/location of that monster sulfate spikes are well known. Should be interesting. Caspar On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:57 PM, [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Caspar, The meeting I'm at is less interesting than IDAG. I'll send the Greenland isotope data when I get back. 536 is a good story. 1258/9 needs to be good story too... I think it isn't at the moment. Cheers Phil Thanks Phil, will have a look. I certainly like it, and I only was a bit picky on the "largest eruption" versus "largest volcanic signal in trees". I like the isotope work very much and will now look if I can pick on something more substantial ;-) Caspar On Jan 30, 2008, at 1:24 PM, [3]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: <2007GL032450.pdf> Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [4]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: [5]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: [6]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 1996. 2008-01-31 23:33:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:33:26 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: Climate Audit to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Sounds like David Holland is now asking, under the Freedom of Information act, for the review editors' reports/letters for all WG1 chapters (apparently they're already available for WG2 chapters). So they will probably find out that Tom Karl sent only 1 sentence! Tim On Thu, January 31, 2008 10:03 pm, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > Tim, Keith, > Have a look at CA and the item about John Mitchell. > Maybe Keith email John - to see if he knows ! > > In my meeting here in Boulder, Tom Karl is here. > His letter to Susan re Ch 3 was one sentence ! > > See this web site - linked from the CRU internal page ! > > http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080130gore_temps_fake.html > > Tom says policy is changing in the White House. > > Cheers > Phil > > > 238. 2008-02-03 22:59:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:59:51 -0500 from: Kim Cobb subject: Proxy Uncertainty workshop, June 9-11, 2008, Trieste, Italy 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, larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com, thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch, kc182@gatech.edu, Edward Cook , Iannitti Lisa Dear colleagues, Thank you all for your unanimous enthusiasm for the Proxy Uncertainty workshop. With the participation of a such a broad and excellent cross-section of the high-res paleoclimate community, it promises to be an exciting meeting. I encourage you to book your tickets soon, as summer fares are already increasing. You can either fly directly into Trieste (code TRS), or into Venice (slightly cheaper, probably one less connection). The conference venue (International Centre for Theoretical Physics: http://www.ictp.it/) is a short taxi or bus-ride from the Trieste airport, or a longer bus or train ride from the Venice airport (140km distance). The conference will start early on June 9 and hopefully we'll have solved all sources of proxy uncertainty by mid-afternoon on June 11th. The conference dinner will take place on June 10th. Lisa Ianitti is our ICTP coordinator (copied above), and she will soon be sending you an official letter of invite and, more importantly, an accommodation booking form. Our conference room will be sea-side in the Adriatico Guest House, so I suggest you book a (sea-side) room in the Adriatico before they fill up. Please Cc Lisa on your travel arrangements, as they take shape, and let us know if you have any questions at this point. We'll be drafting a detailed scientific agenda and sending it out for your review over the next months. We look forward to seeing you all in Trieste this summer. Sincerely, Kim Cobb Janice Lough Jonathan Overpeck Sandy Tudhope Thorsten Kiefer 814. 2008-02-04 10:09:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 4 10:09:24 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: RE: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08 to: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk FYI Phil X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-67.messagelabs.com!1201797478!21737588!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48] X-SIZE: LGE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,285,1199664000"; d="scan'208,217,32?ppt'208,217,32,32";a="12032768" Subject: RE: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:37:32 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08 Thread-Index: AchW0ddBZ2sACiv7Sfyl/Ase/V+1IQNUP8uQ From: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" To: "UKCIP08" , "Jenkins, Geoff" , "David Sexton" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" , "Murphy, James" , "Richard Lamb" , "Stephens, Ag" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2008 16:37:40.0097 (UTC) FILETIME=[98412F10:01C86427] Hi all, I did my UKCIP08 teach-in this morning; everyone seemed extremely interested and they would like to report back to you that they did indeed understand slides 11 and 12 after some time spent going through the process ;-) Had lots of representatives from domestic adaptation policy, plus farming, water supply and regulation, biodiversity, and Karl! I attach the final presentation which I've added various things to, mainly pinching stuff from the prep workshops presentation (thanks Richard). I'd be grateful if on glancing you can see anything that I've subsequently added which isn't quite right, particularly on the use/misuse slides as the group really liked these, in case I use this again. The other thing is that I know the list in slide 1 is not exhaustive but it's quite nice to have the whole project team listed to show officials how many people are involved, so if you see names missing let me know and I'll add them. Some of the questions that were raised which I need to think about in the run up to launch are: - if users want to amalgamate data for regions that are not given (e.g. countryside survey regions) will there be capacity to expand the given regions after launch? I explained that computing capacity and time meant limiting the types of aggregated regions we could give, but suggested that there might be scope for Defra funded projects after launch to take the raw data and amalgamate it into different regions for particular sectors e.g. biodiversity. Do you think this would be possible? (not for you to do but theoretically?). - What messages will we give about how long UKCIP08 will be current for? Ie will it be worthwhile for users to spend a lot of money on '08 only to find a new set of scenarios comes out in another 5 years? I explained that this was difficult to predict but that the modelling represented in '08 was cutting edge and as the modelling community was moving towards probabilistic modelling we didn't expect it to suddenly become obsolete in a few years time...so worth investing in. But a good thing to do in communication terms would be to have some explanation of the differences in the results between '02 and '08; more detail obviously, but also whether the sign of change has altered dramatically, so that projects that used 02 know whether they need to rethink their results, or not. - What are the pros and cons of using statistical vs dynamical downscaling? Have discussed cost and sent them the text from the IPCC that describes differences between the two, but any more information on what approach works best for the UK (specific regions even) would be of interest; downscaling created a lot of interest in terms of its robustness. - Can we give stakeholders a statement about our confidence in HadCM3 as a model compared to other models, e.g. are there any studies that score different models on their ability to model past climate? They understood that we are now using more than the Hadley model but were still interested in how it performs against other IPCC models. Have sent them to IPCC text on reliability of all models, but have yet to see anything apart from Jason's work on how HadCM3 performs compared to other models...do we have anything? - In relation to migration and cross-Europe issues, having scenarios for the whole of Europe would be of interest. Is this theoretically possible? Mentioned ENSEMBLES and that the UKCIP08 model data includes some of Europe (it's just that we're not giving the data out!). On the whole, the group was extremely impressed with the quality of the science, the fact that UK was one of the first countries to try this, and the way the results will be presented through the user interface and in the different layers of complexity. Kind Regards, Kathryn ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: UKCIP08 [[1]mailto:ukcip08@ukcip.org.uk] Sent: 14 January 2008 17:21 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Jenkins, Geoff; David Sexton; Chris Kilsby; Phil Jones Cc: Stephens, Ag Subject: Re: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08- comments please Giving a presentation of this type is a challenge and going into the science at a level higher than that we have used in discussions with non-scientists adds significantly to that challenge. Although you know best the level of those involved, I would be somewhat surprised if the audience was comprised of many at level 2 (see PMG paper). If this is the case, there are aspects of this presentation which may be over their heads. You may be able to simplify the science through the accompanying explanations, however the slides themselves may loose them. Comments on specific slides: Slide 4 - "User feedback" has been sought and received, albeit somewhat informally, since 2002. The formal consultations process used to inform UKCIP08 initial development took place in 2005/06. Slide 6. Bullet points 1 and 2 - UKCIP02 does not give a range just a single estimate (for each of four emission scenarios). This presentation of different results for the available emission scenarios will be the same for UKCIP08, albeit the results will be probabilitistic projections rather than a single estimate as in UKCIP02. Slide 6, Bullet point 4 - In terms of having projections at 25kmX25km rather than 50kmX50km introduces additional atmospheric processes and geographic features (mountain ranges and islands) that may be useful in better representing climate at the local level (this will need to be verified through application). Slide 6, Bullet point 6 - Note that UKCIP02 includes information on changes in sea level and UK marine climate (see chapter 06). This information is not as extensive as that to be provided by UKCIP08, and did not include projections under the sea. Slide 8 - UKCIP08, like UKCIP02 addresses the uncertainty arising from that associated with the future emissions of GHG (atmospheric concentration of GHG) by providing projections of changes in climate based on use of a discreet number of emission scenarios (SRES emission scenarios). This point needs to be clear throughout the presentation. It should also be mentioned that UKCIP08 provide a representation of a range of uncertainty, it does not necessary account for all uncertainty. Slide 9 - quite complex, but I can see the advantage of this type of presentation. I would prefer to use GJJ's slides that show the implications of additional information and stay away from the joint probabilities representation. Slide 10 - quite complex and will be a challenge to communicate. I would caution you in using this and suggest simplifying the slide (remember the difficulty and questions raise during David's presentation of this type of information at the UKCIP08 learning day. Perhaps David Sexton could suggest a simpler presentation. Slide 11 - Agree with Ag's suggestion regarding the title of this slide. You may find that there are better ways of showing what information will be provided (e.g., posters shown at the last SG meeting - see Ag). I would also note that climate sensitivity (horizontal axes on pdf) is not a UKCIP08 variable and including it may cause some confusion. I would also be careful about including the numerical values as I believe that the intention is not to include interaction and running total of weights. Slide 12 - need to emphasis that these are preliminary results that do not include all aspects of the modelling (e.g., do not believe that they include carbon cycle feedback). Slide 13 - I suggested you use our slide on the weather generator from the training workshop slides (or at least components of it). I believe It more clearly depicts how the weather generator perturbs the observed climate by sampling off the PDF. Slide 16 - Including Bayesian, discrepancy, etc. could be too complex for the intended audience. I would suggest raising the related issues in a context that the audience may better understand (e.g., difficulties with statistical techniques may be more than required/possible to provide). Slide 17 and 18 - My advise is to keep it simple. Slide 20 (see earlier e-mail). As I said, this will be a challenge and I would be careful about raising the level unnecessarily above that that the audience can take in. Roger ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) To: [3]UKCIP08 ; [4]Jenkins, Geoff ; [5]David Sexton ; [6]Chris Kilsby ; [7]Phil Jones Cc: [8]Stephens, Ag Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 5:01 PM Subject: Presentation for Defra officials on UKCIP08- comments please Dear all, On 31st January I'll be doing a session for (about 20) Defra officials to bring them up to speed on UKCIP08 (particularly on what probabilistic modelling actually is), how it will be presented, and get them thinking about any work they might need to commission. None are scientists but I thought I'd have a go at the science with them anyway to see if it's possible to get it across in slightly more detail than the prep workshop level for example. Attached is the draft presentation so far. I'd be very grateful if you could have a look at some of the slides as follows to check I'm not saying anything incorrect, as follows: Geoff/David- slides 2,3,5,8,9,10,11,12,16,17,18,19 Chris/Phil- slide 13 UKCIP- slides 4,6,7,14,15. I also need some help with slide 20; would it be possible to do a quick ask round of the users' panel and ask for some examples, so they're a bit more realistic than me just making them up? Ag- if you fancy taking a general look! I'll be adding some more "Defra-relevant" material on how UKCIP08 relates to policy etc. as well at the end and tidying up the presentation so no need to comment on style, text size etc. Comments by the 17th if possible would be much appreciated! Kind Regards, Kathryn <<2008-01-02 UKCIP08 Defra teach in.ppt>> 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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3033. 2008-02-04 13:28:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:28:59 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: wengen paper progress AND new position stating August to: "Wahl, Eugene R" , Hi Gene, thanks for the useful feedback. I've incorporated all your edits and additions and will insert the revised section back into Phil's master document. I'll email Caspar about the few remaining issues related to the figures. Some further thoughts (for interest only, not for any further modification of the text): (1) re. the question of whether you can extract linear coefficients relating individual proxies to individual temperatures for RegEM or whether it is somehow non-linear due to the iterative implementation. Well, I don't really know, so I've kept your suggested text there. However, Jason Smerdon told me he had done the extraction, though he didn't show me any results! Obviously the coefficients would change with every change in proxy network and/or temperature network. But if they were fixed, Jason says you can get coefficients out of it. Mike M. wrote a similar thing about the MBH98 method (i.e., that you couldn't get coefficients out of it) but Gerd Burger told me that he had proven analytically that you could. He showed me a page of algebra but no results to back it up! So I really don't know what to think... an interesting question to resolve later, I think. (2) re. the question of quantitative evaluation/comparison of climate fields and, perhaps more difficult still to reduce to a few metrics, time series of fields. Yes, it is something I'm interested in looking at in more detail and would be happy to do something together on this, though time is tight for the next half year at least. Congratulations on your forthcoming move to Boulder, Cheers Tim At 21:47 03/02/2008, Wahl, Eugene R wrote: >Hi Tim, Phil, Keith: > >Attached is my go-over of entire chapter 3. [I didn't have a role >in other chapters, so I didn't review those.] > >I essentially agreed with everything you did there, Tim, as you will >see. I've added references here and there that I think should be >included where inserted, but since my knowledge is not encyclopedic >in the area (unfortunately, as it should be more full) there may be >other references that appropriately should be included. > >I also included a couple sentences relating to pseudo-proxy >experiments I did with the Luterbacher et al.-type TEOF field >reconstruction method last August to prepare for the Beijing IMSC >meeting -- the meeting where Caspar gave my talk for me. These >results should be included, because they indicate that the canonical >regression TEOF method L. et al. have used (pioneered in >paleoclimatology by Hal Fritts) might perform about as well as RegEM >under certain circumstances. This would be interesting, not least >because the coefficients that are derived in this method directly >give the relative contribution of each proxy PC to each retained >instrumental PC. This kind of direct, easy-to-interpret output is >useful, I think. > >I also added a little bit to clarify the wording about the >interesting result that TEOF CFRs may reconstruct anomaly pattern >spatial representations more robustly than they do the amplitudes of >spatial means. > >I need to direct you to Caspar for the originals of the "too small" >figures that I included. Alternatively, what about just blowing >them up and using the larger versions, rather than the "postage stamp" ones? > >Thanks for your work, one and all. > >Peace, Gene >________________________________ > >From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Sun 1/27/2008 10:28 PM >To: Wahl, Eugene R >Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk >Subject: RE: wengen paper progress AND new position stating August > > Gene, > Congratulations on the new job with the paleo group > in Boulder. > > I'm currently in Boulder at a meeting. I'll be here all > the week and leave for home on Friday. Francis will be > here as well. Caspar should be also. He's not on the IDAG > group, but I think he's attending. > I've been through what Tim has done and it looks OK. > > We're under a bit of pressure from Thorsten and Larry > (PAGES and EPRI) to get this whole thing off. Next weekend > will be fine though. > > The three of us in CRU will have a good go the first week of > Feb. Keith still needs to add in the tree-ring bit. > > Keith's arranged with the Holocene to get the whole thing reviewed > quickly, so we'll pick up time. It seems though that Larry > wants something to justify his funding of the Wengen meeting. > > When looking at the draft next weekend, look also at the > Figures you supplied. Most are OK, but if you can send the > one that is a bit blurry - and most detailed in another format > that would be good. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > > Hi Tim (and Phil and Keith): > > > > Thanks, Tim, for the work on this. I've looked things over briefly, and > > have booked time next weekend to get to it in earnest. It's quite a job > > you've done to put all the pieces together. > > > > One question, and to Phil and Keith also, is whether you see/saw > > significant difference between the results I'm reporting from my work with > > Caspar and those reported by Francis and his co-workers. I will look for > > this, of course, but want also to check with you. Caspar says he doesn't > > think there should be any problem, but I'd also like your opinion. And, > > of course, difference can be a good thing too... > > > > I'm sorry that I can't look at the text sooner, but we have a major event > > going on here (and at 1200 other universities and colleges in the US) this > > week. It is called "Focus the Nation", and is a major effort to stimulate > > the political landscape to take climate change issues seriously -- > > especially with our presidential "primaries" going on, and a major number > > of the state voting on Feb. 5. I am significantly involved in this as > > Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, so my time is pretty limited for the > > next 6 days. > > > > > > Finally, you may have heard that I have accepted a scientist position with > > the NOAA Paleoclimate Branch. I will be starting in August, after I > > complete Spring term here at Alfred and have the chance to move and get > > settled back in Colorado. I am excited to make this move, and have the > > chance to do more significant focusing on my research than I've been able > > to do during this academic year. > > > > Below is a copy of the e-announcement released by NOAA. > > > > Peace, Gene > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: New scientist at the Paleoclimatology Branch > > Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:07:41 -0500 > > From: David Easterling > > To: _NESDIS NCDC All /w PB & Contractors > > > > It is with pleasure that we announce that Dr. Gene Wahl currently > > at Alfred University in NY has accepted our offer, and will join the > > Paleoclimatology Branch in Boulder this coming August. > > We are very lucky to have Gene join us. He is an expert in climate > > reconstructions of the past millennium using tree rings and multi-proxy > > data networks. He has pioneered new methods in this area, testified on > > this topic for Congress, and participates in the PAGES focus on this > > theme. Gene began his paleo career in palynology, and completed his PhD > > on pollen analysis with Margaret Davis at the U. of Minn, one of the > > pioneers of paleoecology. In this area he has worked with transfer > > functions and analog techniques, methods relevant to all our fossil > > count data. Finally, Gene brings expertise in the statistical analysis > > of climate data, including new methods to compare paleoclimate and > > model data, an area that will be of benefit not only in paleo but also to > > the > > Scientific Services Division and NCDC in general. > > > > -- > > David R. Easterling, Ph.D > > Chief, Scientific Services Division > > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center > > 151 Patton Avenue > > Asheville, NC 28801 > > V: +1 828 271 4675 > > F: +1 828 271 4328 > > David.Easterling@noaa.gov > > > > > > -- > > David M. Anderson > > NOAA Paleoclimatology Branch Chief and Director, World Data Center for > > Paleoclimatology > > NOAA's National Climatic Data Center > > 325 Broadway, E/CC23, Boulder, CO, 80305-3328 > > Tel: (303) 497-6237 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > > Sent: Sat 1/26/2008 1:44 PM > > To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; Wahl, Eugene R; > > francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca > > Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk > > Subject: wengen paper progress > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, Gene, Francis and Keith, > > > > I've now finished putting Gene's and Francis' contributios together with > > some text of mine into section 3 of the "Wengen" paper. Everything has > > been done with tracked changes so that you can follow (and undo if > > necessary) what I've done. > > > > Gene -- this is the same as Friday's version except that I have now > > continued from page 34 to the end of your contribution with a few further > > suggested changes. > > > > Phil -- I've also had time to comment on the ice core section, so there > > are some suggested edits there too. > > > > Francis -- your contribution forms section 3.4.1. I included the edits > > that I had previously sent you... so please see my previous email if you > > want to undo any of them. Is the Lee et al. paper out yet? If so, could > > you send the full citation? > > > > Keith -- when you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at > > the sections 3.2 and 3.3 that I added on CPS methods and on the > > pseudo-proxy approach to see if they read ok. > > > > 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 2851. 2008-02-04 16:24:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Feb 4 16:24:25 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Incomplete first draft of response to Douglass et al. to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, A few thoughts on the paper - read whilst travelling home. It reads well, but I saw Tom covering some sections in red when we were in Boulder. Several times it could be better to say tropospheric as opposed to atmospheric - the abstract is one place. English spellings of modelled and vapour and colour throughout. Some are, some aren't. You refer to Solomon et al 2007 yet have IPCC 2007 in the ref list. I'd prefer to refer to the chapters. You do this with Trenberth et al., but need to with hegerl et al. I guess you'll get to this. Could say that DCSP07 is published online. The start of the second para of the Intro could be better. Didn't like 'Yet' as the first word. Top of 10 you had a data 'is' and not 'are' p15 pt 4, the different realizations of y (nought) (t) is important but probably needs more explanation. I know its uncertain, but it it is easier to show this for y (sub m) (t). p16 say '... trends in an individual modelled and an observed time series...' Lots of good things said in the final pages. Happy to go through another version at some point. Cheers Phil At 00:01 26/01/2008, you wrote: Dear folks, I am just about to leave for Boulder. I have not yet finished the first draft of our IJoC paper. It has proved to be quite difficult to write all of this stuff up. It's tricky to find the right balance between "readability" and technical accuracy, particularly on some of these statistical issues. Even though this draft is incomplete, I'm sending you what I've done so far. I'm a little reluctant to do this, but I won't be back in my office until next Thursday, and thought that you might appreciate the opportunity to read and critique what I've done so far. I still need to complete the final section (Section 7), which will be fairly short, and will describe the "vertical profile" Figure that Peter and Leo have generated. The Conclusions section is also non-existent. There are no Figure or Table captions at present, but by now, you should be intimately familiar with all details of the Figures! The references also need a little work. As you will see, I've used footnotes rather liberally. I like folding some of the more technical information into footnotes, so that the "flow" of the paper isn't disrupted. Not all of the footnotes may survive. Also, it's quite possible that we may need to shift some of the information in the main text to Appendices. There are two more sensitivity tests I'd like to perform. One (which is mentioned in the text, but not yet completed) involves looking at the sensitivity of the model-versus-observed "paired trend" tests to use of longer observational data records. That should be easy to do, and will involve the addition of a few lines of results to Table 1. The other test is to repeat the model-versus-observed "paired trend" tests and replace the MODEL adjusted standard errors with the OBSERVED adjusted standard errors. The reasons for this should be obvious from Figure 3 (model overestimation of the observed standard error). I don't think this will change our results by much - but it's a test we need to do. I will not be able to read my email while I'm in Boulder. If anyone needs to get in touch with me while I'm gone, my cell phone number is 925-325-0481. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2101. 2008-02-04 23:01:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:01:15 -0500 from: Kim Cobb subject: Re: [Fwd: Invitation to Proxy Uncertainty workshop, June 9-11, to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, Thanks for the prompt reply, and the tentative yes. I would hate to think that anyone on our invite list won't come because they're a few hundred dollars short of funding, so please let us know if you'll need additional funding to attend, and we'll see what we can do. Hope to see you soonish, KIM Keith Briffa wrote: > Kim > sorry I read your other (multiple) message first. This is a strong > tentative yes - just need to check flights etc and costs before I said > definitely. Best wishes > Keith > > At 04:04 04/02/2008, you wrote: > >> Dear Keith, >> I hope this finds you well. I'm buried in coursework and conference >> planning (I believe it was you who cautioned me against this a couple >> of years ago in Wengen!) >> >> Anyway, you were the only one I didn't hear back from in response to >> our original invite (attached). >> I figured that because you were there when the idea was born, you >> would want to attend, so I marked you a 'yes'. >> Can you let me know if you think you can make it to Trieste this >> summer? If you can't, we'll want to invite another tree-ring >> specialist to the conference. >> Many thanks, >> KIM >> >> >> Message-ID: <47223388.7090801@gatech.edu> >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:35:52 -0400 >> From: Kim Cobb >> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> 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 >> Subject: Invitation to Proxy Uncertainty workshop, June 9-11, 2008, >> Trieste, >> Italy >> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >> boundary="------------050809070200090007050707" >> >> >> 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 >> >> > > -- > 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/ 4308. 2008-02-06 09:42:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eric Guilyardi , Fei-Fei Jin , Matthieu Lengaigne , Mat Collins , Stephen Griffies , Wenju Cai , Markus Jochum , David Neelin , mojib latif , noel keenlyside , Johann Jungclaus , IPRC-science@hawaii.edu, Soon-Il An , "KUG, Jong-Seong" , Toshio Yamagata , Amy Clement , Sandy Tudhope , Mike McPhaden , Mike Mann , Klaus Keller , "Gabriel A. Vecchi" , Scott Power , Magdalena Alonso Balmaseda , jingjia.luo@gmail.com, Andrew Wittenberg , Andrew Turner , Sjoukje Philip , Geert Jan van Oldenborgh , Kevin J Welsh , Alexey Fedorov , wpark@ifm-geomar.de, Michael Ghil , Michele Rienecker , glantz@ucar.edu, dijkstra , Laurent Terray , Andreas Bergner , Mu Mu , Raghu Murtugudde , David Battisti , Chidong Zhang , Stephen Zebiak , Mike Coughlan , Kevin Trenberth , "B.N. Goswami" , Pacific ENSO Applications Centre , Arun Kumar , ECMWF_Update , Tony Barnston , Gary Meyers , Tim Palmer , shukla@cola.iges.org, Ben Kirtman , Clivar Pacific , clivar-pages@clivar.org, clivar-wgsip@clivar.org, clivar-wgcm@clivar.org, Hugues Goosse , mcane@ldeo.columbia.edu, mschewski@ifm-geomar.de, loeptien , heiko.hansen@dkrz.de, Heiko Goelzer , Chunzai Wang , MOLTENI FRANCO , molnar@Colorado.edu, Zhengyu Liu , "Yuko M. Okumura" , "Brad E. Rosenheim" , "W.R Peltier" , "William S. Kessler" , Julien Emile-Geay , Julia Slingo , Julian Sachs , Caspar Ammann , Kim Cobb , henry.f.diaz@noaa.gov, Nick Graham , Simon Haberle , "Mark A. Lander" , De-Zheng Sun , Lonnie Thompson , rosentha@imcs.marine.rutgers.edu, max.fernandez@africamuseum.be, Boris.Dewitte@cnes.fr, Masahiro Watanabe , Pascale Delecluse , "tony.rosati" , Cathy Stephens , "Legler, David" , Richard Kleeman , Roger Lukas , Keith Rodgers , Robert Burgman , Thomas Stocker , Sophie.Cravatte@lodyc.jussieu.fr, å´ç«‹æ–° , Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 09:42:18 -1000 from: Axel Timmermann subject: ENSO summer school in Hawaii to: Axel Timmermann Dear colleagues, The CLIVAR Pacific panel is organizing a summer school on "ENSO: dynamics and predictability" on the Big Island of Hawaii in June 2008. More information on this summerschool can be found on http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/~axel/summerschool.pdf and on the official summerschool webpage: http://www.clivar.org/organization/pacific/meetings/ENSOsummerschool.php Please help us to distribute this information widely to your students and colleagues. I apologize for multiple postings. Best regards Axel Axel Timmermann Chair of International CLIVAR Pacific panel Associate Professor in Oceanography IPRC, SOEST, University of Hawaii Honolulu, HI 96822 USA http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/~axel/atimmermann.html 739. 2008-02-06 13:21:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 6 13:21:06 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Feb 7-8 to: James Hansen Jim, I see you're down for a meeting in London tomorrow and Friday. I have been having something of a run in with a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard's life awful in French. If you're there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he's just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn't warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn't be difficult!! I'm lecturing here in Norwich to students so can't make it to London. If you're not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 431. 2008-02-06 13:26:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 6 13:26:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: London meeting to: Edouard BARD Edouard, Away last week and catching up. I can't make London as I'm teaching here in Norwich. No-one else can go. It seems like an odd meeting in London -surprised they got Jim Hansen to talk. I've sent an email to Jim to warn him. Jim won't likely be there on the second day - so I've asked him to make sure there are a few reasoned scientists there and they know what might be coming when Vincent gets up. I don't know the others in the UK - seem like geologists and oceanographers, so there may not be many climate types there. I do know one of them so will send him a quick email. Cheers Phil At 10:45 05/02/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Sorry to bother you again with this stuff, but it is important to keep you tuned. Besides the informations sent previously (e.g. my messages pasted below), you should know that Courtillot keeps saying and writing publicly that you did errors in your publications and datasets available to the public. A further example is the video of his talk available on the IPGP web site. In the front row of the packed audience, you can even see the president of CNRS (Ms. Brechignac) and the former Director of Scientific Research of the Ministry (Ms Giacobino). I paste below some comments (in French) that I wrote to colleagues about when Courtillot lies about your work. The main reason for my email is also to inform you about the forthcoming meeting in London during which Courtillot will give a keynote lecture just after Jim Hansen ! The title of his presentation is particularly appealing "Which global warming?". This is the annual meeting of the British Geophysical Association "New Advances in Geophysics" on the theme "Geophysics of Global Climate Change". "The aim of the meeting is to bring together the diverse strands of geophysical research into climate change". The six keynote speakers are the following Dr. Jim Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. Heiko Palike, NOC, Southampton Prof. Vincent Courtillot, IPG, Paris Dr. David Pyle, Oxford Dr. Mark Siddall, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Prof. Paul Wilson, NOC, Southampton More info can be found on the following web site: [1]http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/~heiko/NAG2008/NAG2008.html I hope that you will be able to attend or that somebody from your lab will be able to respond to the detailed accusations propagated by Courtillot. Best wishes, Edouard ***************************************************************** J'ai pris le temps de regarder la conférence de Courtillot à l'IPGP le 10 janvier disponible en ligne sur le site web de l'IPGP: [2]http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/ , cliquer sur actualités, séminaires, vidéos, 10 janvier) Beaucoup de choses à redire, mais ce serait trop long (en particulier au sujet de la pirouette de la translation + homothétie pour l'irradiance solaire). Au sujet de la courbe qu'ils ont intitulée Tglobe, Courtillot dit très distinctement: Fichier "Exposé I" à 23 min et 40 sec.: "Cette courbe est bien de Monsieur Jones. Elle est bien dans son article de 1999 de Reviews of Geophysics." Fichier "Conclusions" à 7 min. et 30 sec.: "C'est eux qui se sont trompés. Quand nous, nous avions pris cette courbe, il y a cinq ans dans l'article de Reviews of Geophysics, on a bien évidemment admis que la légende de Jones et ses données étaient vraies. Ce sont bien ses données, mais sa légende est fausse". Toute personne qui prend ce fameux papier de Jones et al. (1999, Rev. Geophys.) peut constater que ces deux assertions sont totalement FAUSSES. A noter que la présidente du CNRS est assise au premier rang. ***************************************************************** Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:23:55 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Edouard BARD Subject: additional file (attached PDF) X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:1254945:Pierrehumbert/Pasotti.pdf: Phil, In complement to my email of last week (pasted below), I attach the Comment submitted by Ray to Science. Cheers, Edouard ***************************************** Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:19:42 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Edouard BARD Subject: French daggers (+ 3 attached files) X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:1254945:VC-DroitReponse - Acad.doc: :Macintosh HD:1254945:Acad01-08-SH.ppt: :Macintosh HD:929141:LeMonde16/1/08.pdf: Hello Phil, Ray sent a formal letter to Science. This is submitted for publication in the paper version of Science. Given the size limit (300 words) he couldn't give many details about the temperature data. An additional possibility for commenting is through what they call an e-letter that goes quicker. Note that during the 'Secret Committee' last Tuesday at the Academy, Courtillot and Allègre ferociously accused me for organizing a plot against their institute IPGP. As I told you, nobody was there to defend my case. Note also that Courtillot makes direct and vicious attacks against you: This started in the official 'Lettre de l'Académie' in which he wrote a long interview following the meetings in March 2007. I think you have this document already. You can download it again from: [3]http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/lettre.htm On page 3, Courtillot accuses you for hiding the temperature data and express his doubts about your computations. On page 25, Courtillot writes: "Je suis en discussion depuis nos journées avec le professeur Jones, un échange amical et régulier pour essayer de voir si nous pouvons reprendre et comparer nos données aux leurs. Pour l'instant cela semble difficile, ce laboratoire ayant signé un accord de confidentialité avec les fournisseurs de données brutes ! Reconstituer cette base de données avec un accès aux données de l'ensemble des stations météorologiques du monde est un travail considérable, puisque le professeur Jones a dans sa base de données 3,7 millions de températures mensuelles depuis 1850. Or nous avons des doutes croissants sur la validité d'un calcul que pour l'instant nous n'avons pas tous les éléments pour reprendre." Last Tuesday, during the 'Secret Committee' at the Academy, Courtillot reiterated his doubts and distributed to all academicians a text (attached Word file) and made a powerpoint presentation (attached PPT file). This documents also includes the editorial note that will be published by Rob van der Hilst in the next EPSL issue in order to print my note added in proof and to clarify the data sources. Part of Courtillot's text is already published in Le Monde (+ edits) and will be published in other major French newspapers. On pages 5, 6 8, and in Le Monde Courtillot writes: "Sans trop rentrer dans les détails techniques, il nous a été reproché d'avoir utilisé des données dont les références n'étaient pas ce que nous disions. Notamment une série de données que nous attribuions à un chercheur britannique, M. Jones, n'était pas reconnue par ce chercheur comme provenant de lui. Nous avons établi que ce chercheur faisait erreur et que les données étaient bien les siennes et que nous n'avions en rien altéré ses données. Nous les attribuions en revanche par erreur à tout un hémisphère de la terre alors qu'elles étaient en fait réduites à la zone de latitudes allant de 20°N au pôle. Cette confusion résulte principalement d'un manque de clarté des légendes des articles de Jones et de ses co-auteurs eux-mêmes, mais surtout, et c'est le plus important pour le débat scientifique, elle est sans conséquences sur nos conclusions, les diverses séries de données concernées étant peu différentes, comme il est aisé de le vérifier. Dans la note évoquée par S. Huet, Bard et Delaygue nous ont accusés de fausse citation, en arguant du témoignage (erroné) de Jones." Note that Courtillot makes as if the file he used is taken directly from Jones et al. (1999) as cited in his paper, instead of explaining that it is a different curve, constructed for a very specific purpose in Briffa et al. (2001) of which you are coauthor. What is amazing is that Courtillot claims that the only confusion is between a record for latitude >20°N instead of the northern hemisphere. This is crazy because the confusion is between the global curve and a curve not only for latitudes >20°N BUT also only for continents and during the April-September warm season. Looking again at Figure 2 page 178 of Jones et al. (1999), it don't see any "lack of clarity" in your three-panel figure! It is even obvious that the Tglobe curve he used is similar to the northern Hemispheric one instead of the global one. This was actually the reason of my initial doubt expressed in the submitted version of my EPSL Comment. In addition, I don't see why the statement form you I used in my note added in proof would be erroneous: "We were unable to find this file even by contacting its putative author who specifically stated to us that it is not one of his files (Dr. Philip D. Jones, written communication dated Oct. 23, 2007)." This statement is completely true. This is indeed not one of your UEA file. Second, the first part of the URL is incomplete and incorrect (dots are missing). We now know that this file DOES exist at NOAA BUT that it is NOT what has been plotted by Courtillot et al.: [4]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html [5]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Hence, if I had not submitted my note added in proof, the readers would be unable to locate the file and would believe that it is a (land) global temperature file. In any case the file was not the one plotted on their Figure now replotted in Science ! Best wishes, Edouard -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [6]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3124. 2008-02-06 13:36:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 6 13:36:32 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: A warning for Feb 7-8 to: Robert Marsh Bob, Maybe you're the Robert Marsh giving a poster at a meeting of paleo types in London tomorrow - Burlington House. If not ignore this message. You'll get one good talk from Jim Hansen. You'll get one awful talk on the Friday from a Vincent Courtillot. If he lays into me, or says the world isn't warming you have my permission to go and put the boot it. Shouldn't be difficult. Have emailed Jim as well. Vincent is a prat, but he's a well connected prat - French Academy and all that. He's been making life a misery for Eduoard Bard. I can't make it - I'm just trying to help Eduoard! If you're not the Robert Marsh, I can explain more next time we meet! Cheers Phil PS Some background if you can read french! From: Edouard BARD Subject: London meeting X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.4 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, Sorry to bother you again with this stuff, but it is important to keep you tuned. Besides the informations sent previously (e.g. my messages pasted below), you should know that Courtillot keeps saying and writing publicly that you did errors in your publications and datasets available to the public. A further example is the video of his talk available on the IPGP web site. In the front row of the packed audience, you can even see the president of CNRS (Ms. Brechignac) and the former Director of Scientific Research of the Ministry (Ms Giacobino). I paste below some comments (in French) that I wrote to colleagues about when Courtillot lies about your work. The main reason for my email is also to inform you about the forthcoming meeting in London during which Courtillot will give a keynote lecture just after Jim Hansen ! The title of his presentation is particularly appealing "Which global warming?". This is the annual meeting of the British Geophysical Association "New Advances in Geophysics" on the theme "Geophysics of Global Climate Change". "The aim of the meeting is to bring together the diverse strands of geophysical research into climate change". The six keynote speakers are the following Dr. Jim Hansen, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. Heiko Palike, NOC, Southampton Prof. Vincent Courtillot, IPG, Paris Dr. David Pyle, Oxford Dr. Mark Siddall, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Prof. Paul Wilson, NOC, Southampton More info can be found on the following web site: [1]http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/~heiko/NAG2008/NAG2008.html I hope that you will be able to attend or that somebody from your lab will be able to respond to the detailed accusations propagated by Courtillot. Best wishes, Edouard ***************************************************************** J'ai pris le temps de regarder la conférence de Courtillot à l'IPGP le 10 janvier disponible en ligne sur le site web de l'IPGP: [2]http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/ , cliquer sur actualités, séminaires, vidéos, 10 janvier) Beaucoup de choses à redire, mais ce serait trop long (en particulier au sujet de la pirouette de la translation + homothétie pour l'irradiance solaire). Au sujet de la courbe qu'ils ont intitulée Tglobe, Courtillot dit très distinctement: Fichier "Exposé I" à 23 min et 40 sec.: "Cette courbe est bien de Monsieur Jones. Elle est bien dans son article de 1999 de Reviews of Geophysics." Fichier "Conclusions" à 7 min. et 30 sec.: "C'est eux qui se sont trompés. Quand nous, nous avions pris cette courbe, il y a cinq ans dans l'article de Reviews of Geophysics, on a bien évidemment admis que la légende de Jones et ses données étaient vraies. Ce sont bien ses données, mais sa légende est fausse". Toute personne qui prend ce fameux papier de Jones et al. (1999, Rev. Geophys.) peut constater que ces deux assertions sont totalement FAUSSES. A noter que la présidente du CNRS est assise au premier rang. ***************************************************************** Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:23:55 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Edouard BARD Subject: additional file (attached PDF) X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:1254945:Pierrehumbert/Pasotti.pdf: Phil, In complement to my email of last week (pasted below), I attach the Comment submitted by Ray to Science. Cheers, Edouard ***************************************** Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:19:42 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Edouard BARD Subject: French daggers (+ 3 attached files) X-Attachments: :Macintosh HD:1254945:VC-DroitReponse - Acad.doc: :Macintosh HD:1254945:Acad01-08-SH.ppt: :Macintosh HD:929141:LeMonde16/1/08.pdf: Hello Phil, Ray sent a formal letter to Science. This is submitted for publication in the paper version of Science. Given the size limit (300 words) he couldn't give many details about the temperature data. An additional possibility for commenting is through what they call an e-letter that goes quicker. Note that during the 'Secret Committee' last Tuesday at the Academy, Courtillot and Allègre ferociously accused me for organizing a plot against their institute IPGP. As I told you, nobody was there to defend my case. Note also that Courtillot makes direct and vicious attacks against you: This started in the official 'Lettre de l'Académie' in which he wrote a long interview following the meetings in March 2007. I think you have this document already. You can download it again from: [3]http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/lettre.htm On page 3, Courtillot accuses you for hiding the temperature data and express his doubts about your computations. On page 25, Courtillot writes: "Je suis en discussion depuis nos journées avec le professeur Jones, un échange amical et régulier pour essayer de voir si nous pouvons reprendre et comparer nos données aux leurs. Pour l'instant cela semble difficile, ce laboratoire ayant signé un accord de confidentialité avec les fournisseurs de données brutes ! Reconstituer cette base de données avec un accès aux données de l'ensemble des stations météorologiques du monde est un travail considérable, puisque le professeur Jones a dans sa base de données 3,7 millions de températures mensuelles depuis 1850. Or nous avons des doutes croissants sur la validité d'un calcul que pour l'instant nous n'avons pas tous les éléments pour reprendre." Last Tuesday, during the 'Secret Committee' at the Academy, Courtillot reiterated his doubts and distributed to all academicians a text (attached Word file) and made a powerpoint presentation (attached PPT file). This documents also includes the editorial note that will be published by Rob van der Hilst in the next EPSL issue in order to print my note added in proof and to clarify the data sources. Part of Courtillot's text is already published in Le Monde (+ edits) and will be published in other major French newspapers. On pages 5, 6 8, and in Le Monde Courtillot writes: "Sans trop rentrer dans les détails techniques, il nous a été reproché d'avoir utilisé des données dont les références n'étaient pas ce que nous disions. Notamment une série de données que nous attribuions à un chercheur britannique, M. Jones, n'était pas reconnue par ce chercheur comme provenant de lui. Nous avons établi que ce chercheur faisait erreur et que les données étaient bien les siennes et que nous n'avions en rien altéré ses données. Nous les attribuions en revanche par erreur à tout un hémisphère de la terre alors qu'elles étaient en fait réduites à la zone de latitudes allant de 20°N au pôle. Cette confusion résulte principalement d'un manque de clarté des légendes des articles de Jones et de ses co-auteurs eux-mêmes, mais surtout, et c'est le plus important pour le débat scientifique, elle est sans conséquences sur nos conclusions, les diverses séries de données concernées étant peu différentes, comme il est aisé de le vérifier. Dans la note évoquée par S. Huet, Bard et Delaygue nous ont accusés de fausse citation, en arguant du témoignage (erroné) de Jones." Note that Courtillot makes as if the file he used is taken directly from Jones et al. (1999) as cited in his paper, instead of explaining that it is a different curve, constructed for a very specific purpose in Briffa et al. (2001) of which you are coauthor. What is amazing is that Courtillot claims that the only confusion is between a record for latitude >20°N instead of the northern hemisphere. This is crazy because the confusion is between the global curve and a curve not only for latitudes >20°N BUT also only for continents and during the April-September warm season. Looking again at Figure 2 page 178 of Jones et al. (1999), it don't see any "lack of clarity" in your three-panel figure! It is even obvious that the Tglobe curve he used is similar to the northern Hemispheric one instead of the global one. This was actually the reason of my initial doubt expressed in the submitted version of my EPSL Comment. In addition, I don't see why the statement form you I used in my note added in proof would be erroneous: "We were unable to find this file even by contacting its putative author who specifically stated to us that it is not one of his files (Dr. Philip D. Jones, written communication dated Oct. 23, 2007)." This statement is completely true. This is indeed not one of your UEA file. Second, the first part of the URL is incomplete and incorrect (dots are missing). We now know that this file DOES exist at NOAA BUT that it is NOT what has been plotted by Courtillot et al.: [4]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html [5]ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat Hence, if I had not submitted my note added in proof, the readers would be unable to locate the file and would believe that it is a (land) global temperature file. In any case the file was not the one plotted on their Figure now replotted in Science ! Best wishes, Edouard -- ---------------------------------------------- Edouard BARD Professeur au Collège de France Chaire de l'évolution du climat et de l'océan Directeur adjoint du CEREGE, UMR-6635 Le Trocadéro, 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 [6]http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/evo_cli/ ---------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3621. 2008-02-06 15:43:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 6 15:43:44 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8 to: Robert Marsh Bob, If you can send me a couple of sentences next week sometime that would be good. If Courtillot should go on about the CRU station data, then he can get almost the same data from NCDC. As you know, we do release the gridded data, which is what everybody wants. Cheers Phil At 14:39 06/02/2008, you wrote: Phil - I am indeed presenting a poster at the meeting tomorrow/Friday. I appreciate the forewarning! Speak soon - Bob. On 6 Feb 2008, at 13:36, Phil Jones wrote: Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2996. 2008-02-06 16:49:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 6 16:49:24 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Invited paper for 2008 GSA (Houston)- apology to: "George Stone" Dear George and Andy I have really considered this at some length (sorry for that) and unfortunately I have to conclude that my teaching and research deadlines are such that I really can not commit. I appreciate the significance of the event and I am sure that you will find others even better qualified than myself ( Malcolm Hughes at Tucson and Mike Mann are names that come quickly to mind). Please forgive my reluctance , but work pressures at this time of year really will make such a trip not feasible. Very best wishes Keith At 01:50 04/12/2007, you wrote: Dear Dr. Briffa, 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 -- 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/ 1079. 2008-02-06 17:10:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:10:38 -0000 from: "John Davies" subject: FW: [Carbonequity] New report: Climate code red to: Dr Phil Jones, You are probably aware of this report http://www.climatecodered.net/ but just in case I will send it. An indication of it's contents can be gleaned from the correspondence (further below) I had with David Spratt. Prior to that you may wish to see the reaction of Dr Jeff Ridley to some of this. All the Best, John B Davies personal Albert, Your concerns over preserving the Arctic ice are misplaced. There is no evidence that the summer ice is in imminent danger of collapse. Feedbacks in the climate system are only marginally positive. Negative feedbacks are 1. A reduction of sea ice results in increased atmospheric water vapour and hence more clouds. Cloud albedo is greater than sea ice albedo and so net short wave forcing is reduced. 2. A reduction of sea ice results in increased evaporation. Evaporation cools the surface but warms the atmosphere when it condenses. Increased surface heating will increase the condensation height resulting in more heat lost from the atmosphere to space. This is called the 'lapse-rate feedback' 3. A reduction in sea ice results in more short wave absorbed by the open ocean. Increased short wave radiation and increased melt water reduces the ocean mixed layer depth. A shallow mixed layer stratifies the ocean such that the heating is not mixed to the deeper ocean. With the heat confined in the surface layer it is lost to the atmosphere more readily and very rapidly once autumn starts. 4. Thinner ice in summer means more heat loss from the ocean in winter, resulting in stronger ice growth. Positive feedbacks are the obvious 1. Reduced sea ice means more open water and lower albedo so more heat up take and more ice melt. Thus, a simple calculation including only the positive feedback will produce an incorrect early loss of the summer ice. All GCMs show that the inevitable loss of summer Arctic ice does not influence the global climate system. Warming does not increase significantly just because the cloud which replaces much of (but not all) the ice is more reflective. The impact on the North Greenland ice sheet will hasten the regional melt rate. However, it is evident that the decline of the Greenland ice cap will take more than 1000 years. The so called 'speedup' of draining glaciers has been shown to be a transient feature as most of those 'fast' glaciers, diagnosed in 2003, have now slowed to their original speeds. Even if tide-water glaciers were all to speed up, they can only drain 10% of the ice sheet before they become grounded above sea-level. There is ample evidence that non- tidewater glaciers have not increased in speed. > The purpose is to lay suspension bridge cable between some > Arctic Ocean islands in order to prevent sea ice moving south. > We plan to construct it such a way that the cable allows ice > to move northwards but cuts its passage when sea ice turns > moving southwards. The problem is that ice can melt > completely, and in fact this is our expectation before the end > of this decade, say by 2009. This is just nonsense. The forces applied by the ice on such a cable would easily snap it. The area of ice across which winds and ocean transfer momentum to the ice, and integrate the force it applies, are enormous. Given that suspension bridge cables break just holding the relatively minuscule weight and wind cross section, there is no chance at all of this working. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: David Spratt [mailto:dspratt@bigpond.net.au] Sent: 04 February 2008 20:39 To: John Davies Subject: Re: [Carbonequity] New report: Climate code red Yes, this view is now widespread -- including Hansen, Maslowski, etc. See page 3 of the Climate Code Red: "When the ice becomes sufficiently thin it will be sensitive to a "kick" from natural climate variations such as stronger wind/wave surge action that will result in rapid loss of the remaining summer ice cover. And the news gets worse. Louis Fortier, scientific director of the Canadian research network ArcticNet, says the worst- case scenarios about sea-ice loss are comingtrue and the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summertime as soon as 2010 (Young, 2007). Maslowski told the December 2007 conference of the AGU that "our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007... So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative" (Amos, 2007c). NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally told the same conference that after reviewing recent data, he concluded that "the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012" (Beck, 2007a), while NASA's Josefino Comiso said: "I think the tipping point for perennial sea-ice has already passed... It looks like [it] will continue to decline and there's no hope for it to recover" (Inman, 2007). NASA satellite data shows the remaining Arctic sea-ice is unusually thin, making it more likely to melt in future summers. Combining the shrinking sea-ice area with the new thinness of the remaining ice, it is calculated that the overall volume of ice has fallen by half since 2004 (Borenstein, 2007). Lovelock talked about in a speech at the Royal Society around September last year hope that helps david ----------- David Spratt dspratt@bigpond.net.au 0417070099 "We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption" - James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Research, New York, December 2005. www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/ On 05/02/2008, at 2:58 AM, John Davies wrote: > Dear Dr David Spratt, > In the carbon equity report I refer you to the > following paragraph in your summary report. > > 'The loss in summer of all eight million square kilometres of > Arctic sea-ice now seems inevitable, and may occur as early as > 2010, a century ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate > Change projections. There is already enough carbon dioxide in the > Earth's atmosphere to initiate ice sheet disintegration in West > Antarctica and Greenland and to ensure that sea levels will rise > metres in coming decades.' > > As I understand it there is no scientist other than Albert Kallio > and possibly John Nissen who think the Arctic sea ice will melt > entirely in late summer prior to 2013. Should I be wrong about this > will you please let me know who they are. > > This is extremely urgent because if it is possible to show that the > Arctic sea ice is likely to melt down sooner than 2013 then it may > be possible to get almost immediate international action on Global > warming. What is James Lovelock's position on this matter? > > All the Best, > > John B Davies Personal -- Support Friends of the Earth https://www.foe.co.uk/?email_staff 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 708. 2008-02-08 10:57:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: susan.solomon@noaa.gov date: Fri Feb 8 10:57:06 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: IPCC Statements to: "Wayne P. Kraus" Wayne, I've given you starting points about the temperature data in a message recently sent. As for this one, I suggest again that you read the IPCC volume from the web site given previously. The quotes you have given here are a couple from the many in the SPM of the WG1 AR4 2007 Report. In the SPM volume each summary bullet refers to a section in the main report and/or the Technical Summary where you can find the background supporting information. For example, the first of your quotes refers to Chs 3,4 and 5. As I said in the earlier email, IPCC assesses the scientific literature. This literature has all appeared in peer-reviewed journals. I know the IPCC volume is large (996pp) but there is a lot of literature to assess from a lot of climatic-related fields. Best Regards Phil At 23:42 07/02/2008, you wrote: Professor Phil Jones: I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which I assume you have reviewed. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.' 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns' Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based on the actual geologic record of earth history. Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This conclusion seems completely illogical. Please do explain your conclusion! Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wayne P. Kraus [[1]mailto:KrausWP@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM To: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk' Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data Importance: High Professor Phil Jones: A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I guess this has become known as the hockey stick. We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have. 1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that bias? 2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature stations? 3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA which you used when calculating your global average temperatures for the IPCC plot? 4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust your global average volumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How did you do this? In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global average temperature used in your plot. Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer review and verification. Best regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2498. 2008-02-08 12:09:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 8 12:09:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: TP Water comment to: "Palutikof, Jean" Jean, You could add to polar with 'polar and high-elevation' as it doesn't apply there very well either. The comment didn't allude to that, though. So OK with what you plan to add. We did have something in an earlier draft about Dai's PC2 but it must have got pulled at some point. Cheers Phil PS Have just briefly replied to this email - said politely read the IPCC reports! Said the usual IPCC assesses etc.... all the papers we refer to have been peer-reviewed... I'm supposed to help him peer review my papers ! Sent him a couple as a starting point and said a good source of relevant literature is the IPCC Reports! Why email me? cc'd Susan - she's still in post for a few more months... What is it with people with big email tails ! Professor Phil Jones: I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which I assume you have reviewed. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.' 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns' Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based on the actual geologic record of earth history. Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This conclusion seems completely illogical. Please do explain your conclusion! Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wayne P. Kraus [[1]mailto:KrausWP@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM To: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk' Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data Importance: High Professor Phil Jones: A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I guess this has become known as the hockey stick. We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have. 1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that bias? 2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature stations? 3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA which you used when calculating your global average temperatures for the IPCC plot? 4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust your global average volumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How did you do this? In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global average temperature used in your plot. Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer review and verification. Best regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado At 11:26 08/02/2008, Palutikof, Jean wrote: Hi Phil I've now had chance to read this carefully and this is very helpful, especially as we also had a comment on PC2 of the Dai et al analysis. If you're OK with this, I will insert a footnote which says: Note that the PDSI does not realistically model drought in regions where precipitation is held in the snowpack, for example, in polar regions. 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 Email: jean.palutikof@metoffice.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 February 2008 16:25 To: Palutikof, Jean Subject: Re: TP Water comment Jean, Sorry for not getting back sooner. Use as much or as little of this as you want. I'd like to know where this figure has been widely cited and used - but that's another story! I have looked at Dai et al (2004) and the figures come from the top half of their Figure 6, so this is only 6.7% of the total variance. The PDSI is the most widely used measure of drought in the scientific literature. The aim of the PDSI approach is develop drought series with similar characteristics in all parts of the world regardless of the precipitation and temperature climatology. So there will be approximately the same number of droughts in the Mediterranean as in Scandinavia. It is, therefore, a relative as opposed to an absolute measure of drought. This was all discussed in Box 3.1 (p261). PDSI is therefore a non-linear transformation of the basic temperature and precipitation data. In higher latitudes, as temperature is not that high, PDSI is essentially controlled by precipitation. Although the Dai et al (2004) study uses a specific version of PDSI, later work by Wells et al (2004) -see Box 3.1 - shows that the self-calibrating PDSI reproduces much the same patterns in the major PCs within a global PDSI dataset. The self-calibrating version allows local tuning and is not reliant on the original version being developed in the Great Plains. (It is even more local than the Great Plains - Palmer developed it in Kansas!). The PDSI may be unrealistic at high latitudes, but this has nothing to do with coefficient determination. Instead it is unrealistic as in areas with extensive cold seasons, precipitation is held as a snowpack, so not available for runoff. The PCA used in Dai et al (2004) is heavily biased to the tropics and mid-latitudes, as the grid-boxes here are much larger than in the polar regions. So the pattern in the Figure (and the associated time series) is dominated by what is happening in the 50N to 50S zone. The fact that the map is dominated by the tropics is evident in Dai et al's (2004) PC2. The time series for this pattern is dominated by ENSO variability (note the correlation of 0.62 when it is lagged 6 months behind Darwin's mean sea level pressure). The fact that PC2 has such a clear agreement with the most well-known mode of climate variability on interannual-to-decadal timescales should be indicative that PC1 is indicative of the major pattern of drought variability across the world's land areas. Their reason for wanting changes is wrong. It is not to do with the coefficients. PDSI is wrong because of the cold seasons in many regions. I'm not being defensive, but we got loads of comments like this on the Chapter at the various stages. They all come from hydrologists in the US who don't like the PDSI as it is just too simple. I reckon I could reproduce the pattern if I took the CRU gridded precip data - smoothed it with a running 12-month smoother - and then did a PCA. PC1 would be the map shown. I've no idea how you'd chop off the higher latitudes - if you decide to go down that route. If you could chop them off, the time series would be wrong! Cheers Phil At 11:01 07/02/2008, you wrote: >Hi Phil > >Here's the comment: > >This comment was included in the previous >government draft, but not adequately addressed by authors. >"This figure has been widely cited and used, but >there are important caveats related to >determining Palmer Drought Severity Index values >for regions outside the region it was originally >developed (i.e., the U.S. Great Plains). This is >especially true for its application to the high >latitudes and polar regions, since these areas >have extensive permafrost, tundra, etc. >Determining the appropriate coefficients for >application to these areas is extremely suspect! >Please add several caveats regarding its suspect >application to these areas where appropriate in >the text. The Dai et al. (2004) study should've >cut the analysis at a specific latitude (60°N) >given the issues with tundra and permafrost." >(Govt of USA) > >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 >Email: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 940. 2008-02-08 12:22:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:22:10 -0700 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: RE: IPCC Statements to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil: Thanks for your reply. I will review your comments carefully. Just based on the geological analog I would expect that if we had a perfect "yardstick" to measure long-term global temperature trends we should expect to see that over the past 10,000 or 15,000 years the "global" temperature should be increasing. So I infer that the crux of the man-made global warming theory is that the rate of increase in the 20^th century is too steep to be caused by the natural solar cycle variations. So you and the IPCC are alarmed by a change of slope in the 20^th century "global" temperature versus time curve. The leap to man-made GHG in the 20^th century as the cause is still a major leap of faith without verifiable proof that the trace of CO2 among the GHGs is what is driving climate. The enormous financial cost to adopt the IPCC plan to remove atmospheric CO2 requires more proof than a temperature correlation. What if the change of slope is driven by the major GHG, water vapor, would the IPCC demand that we dehydrate the earth? How have you confirmed that the 20^th century change in slope of the "global" temperature versus time plot is not simply an artifact of the urban island effect associated with the terrestrial temperature stations? The NCAR inventory of the 460 USHCN stations to date shows that 70% of the instruments inventoried show pronounced urban island elevated bias. This alone could easily account for a 20^th century change of slope with timing in perfect harmony with the flight to suburbia following WW II. At this time I cannot really conclude that until I look at the data from the rest of the world, a collection that has to include data from the atmosphere over the oceans. The references I have found from publications so far indicate this is a rather sporadic collection of voluntary reports from merchant shipping isolated to the well traveled shipping lanes. At this time I don't know how far back this temperature record goes or what fraction of the oceanic area of the globe has data coverage. With the oceans covering 70% of the globe, I suspect this is a major statistical hurdle to deal with when averaging to obtain a single number "global" average temperature. Next the one map of southern hemisphere historical reporting stations I have seen to date, covering a global area far more vast than the US, appears to be very sparse in comparison to the 1221 USHCN instruments covering just the US. I expect this disparity in the number of reporting stations will be another major statistical hurdle when averaging to find a single number "global" temperature. I am also concerned how the diurnal and seasonal temperature change at any historical temperature recording station is filtered out of this statistical analysis. As you know the diurnal/seasonal swings in temperature can exceed 100ºC. That data scatter could easily swamp the trend line of about 2ºC over a period of time exceeding 10,000 years. If we plotted the entire collection of raw data on a daily basis versus the last 150 years I would expect to see something like the hole in a target created by a shotgun blast. Have you looked at this kind of presentation? All things considered I expect to find the analysis of this collection of data to be a major statistical challenge. Perhaps you can comment on these concerns? Wayne Kraus Littleton, Colorado ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 10:34 AM To: Wayne P. Kraus Subject: RE: IPCC Statements Wayne, Off home now. It is a case of reading the IPCC Report, and understanding about radiative forcing. Read Ch 2 of the IPCC Report. We know why Ice Ages occur - Milankovitch forcing. The timescales are know. There is no dispute about them at all. Milanovitch forcing doesn't have any effect on 30-year timescales. Solar forcing hasn't changed in the last 50 years. We've had more volcanoes in the last 40 years than since the early-20th century, so we should be cooling. We are warming - and at a faster rate than ever before. Also read Chapter 9. Back Monday Phil At 17:00 08/02/2008, you wrote: Phil: Thank you for the links to data which you have sent. I will begin to pull in the data and review it before attempting an analysis. Over my career I have worked with many geologists and I have worked with and mapped lots of geological data. That was the reason for my query which you have not answered. Can you give me a simple explanation why you and the IPCC conclude 20^th century release of greenhouse gases can be the cause of climate change that began thousands of years ago? While this is a proxy temperature record, the geological record of multiple cyclical ice ages and interglacial melting and thawing over the last 1,000,000 years appears to be an exact analog for the glacial melting we are seeing today. I have great difficulty understanding that a time series analysis of the recent 150 years of terrestrial temperature data that you used to construct the plots provided to the IPCC proves that 20^th century greenhouse gases is the cause of this temperature increase. At best I expect my analysis of this data will provide a correlation (which I expect will be very weak given the difficulties with the data that have already been cited by other scientists). A correlation does not prove causation which I know you realize. Whenever, I have been presented with conclusions of causation based entirely on correlation I like to relate the following example from my personal experiences. When I lived and worked in Houston, Texas I bicycled as often as my work load permitted in a rural wooded park near my home. After a while I noticed that every time there were heavy rains in our area I would encounter poisonous snakes on the bicycle path. The correlation was perfect! So I told my friends that I reached the conclusion that the snakes fell from the sky with the rain. No one believed me despite the fact that the correlation was perfect! As you know a scientists has to look beyond a simple correlation to find cause and effect. That seems to be missing from the IPCC findings. Please answer the question linking past ice ages that have come and gone to 20^th century anthropogenic GHGs. Wayne Kraus Littleton, Colorado ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:57 AM To: Wayne P. Kraus Cc: susan.solomon@noaa.gov Subject: Re: IPCC Statements Wayne, I've given you starting points about the temperature data in a message recently sent. As for this one, I suggest again that you read the IPCC volume from the web site given previously. The quotes you have given here are a couple from the many in the SPM of the WG1 AR4 2007 Report. In the SPM volume each summary bullet refers to a section in the main report and/or the Technical Summary where you can find the background supporting information. For example, the first of your quotes refers to Chs 3,4 and 5. As I said in the earlier email, IPCC assesses the scientific literature. This literature has all appeared in peer-reviewed journals. I know the IPCC volume is large (996pp) but there is a lot of literature to assess from a lot of climatic-related fields. Best Regards Phil At 23:42 07/02/2008, you wrote: Professor Phil Jones: I have been researching some of your publications. I just ran across this information which I assume you have reviewed. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change in its most recent report in 2007 stated: 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.' 'Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations12. This is an advance since the TAR's conclusion that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations". Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns' Please explain how you reconcile the fact that the present temperature increase began at the end of the last ice age and that the glaciers have been melting for tens of thousands of years with the claim that this is being driven by 20^th century production of greenhouse gases? How can present release of greenhouse gases be the cause of climate change that happened thousands of years ago? This conclusion seems entirely unjustified if only based on the actual geologic record of earth history. Have you had a peer review on this conclusion with the geological community? This conclusion seems completely illogical. Please do explain your conclusion! Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Wayne P. Kraus [ [2]mailto:KrausWP@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:52 PM To: 'p.jones@uea.ac.uk' Subject: Release of IPCC Temperature Data Importance: High Professor Phil Jones: A colleague and I have been researching the temperature data which IPCC has used to suggest the theory of man-made global warming. We have been searching for the raw data from all historical temperature reporting stations used to construct the IPCC temperature plot. I guess this has become known as the hockey stick. We would like to do our own analysis of the raw data. We have lots of questions about the data you have used. Here are a few of the questions we have. 1. We have found the list of the 1221 USHCN stations from information posted by NCAR. We have noted that urban island effects began to influence the temperature readings during the flight to suburbia following WW II. Did you correct USHCN data to account for that bias? 2. Where can we find the raw data from historical temperature instruments covering the oceans? The oceans cover more than 70% of the surface of the earth and we expect that data to show significantly less variability (data scatter) than terrestrial temperature stations? 3. Where can we find the raw data for all historical temperature data outside the USA which you used when calculating your global averagetemperatures for the IPCC plot? 4. I anticipate the distribution of temperature recording instruments in remote and third world nations is more sparse than in western industrial nations. How did you adjust your global averagevolumetrically? What I mean is if there are 20 USHCN instruments covering the entire state of Kansas and 100 USHCN instruments in the densely populated area near New York City, the averaging technique has to remove that kind of bias. How did you do this? In short, I would be most grateful if you will direct me to an IPCC site where I can retrieve the entire raw data collection you used to develop your analysis. I would also like to see a comprehensive report on the techniques you used to compute your global averagetemperature used in your plot. Based on the many comments I have seen regarding your analysis of this recent temperature history, I believe this data and those conclusions require greater peer review than they have received. I hope you will cooperate in completing the scientific process of peer review and verification. Best regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3062. 2008-02-08 15:02:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 8 15:02:44 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: The Wengen Last Chance Saloon to: Jonathan Overpeck Peck, Hopefully by the end of next week, or early the week after we'll be sending out a draft of the Wengen paper. Keith, Tim and I are just finishing it off. We'd given up on you sending us something on low-resolution terrestrial proxies. This didn't matter, but a month ago we got sent a couple of pages (attached) on marine low-res proxies (from Michael Schulz who was at Wengen). In the next few days, can you write a couple of pages on terrestrial low-res proxies - varves mainly. We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written that sounds as though it could have been written by a coral person 25 years ago. We'll have to cut out some of his stuff. What we want is good honest stuff, warts and all, dubious dating, interpretation marginally better etc. Are you going to Henry Diaz's meeting on Tahiti at the beginning of April - on paleo ENSO? He's retired from NOAA and is now working for CIRES - still living in Hawaii though, so same Henry. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3311. 2008-02-10 19:05:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, c.goodess@uea.ac.uk date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 19:05:23 -0000 (GMT) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: URGENT - model answer to: "Keith Briffa" Hi Keith Sorry for the delay. Model answer attached. I'm a bit worried about potential overlaps with Mike (and given his recent views, potentially contradictory messages). So will be good to see his presentation and/or model answer in advance of my lecture. Clare > dear each of you > Can I simply ask each of you to confirm whether or not you have > already sent me a model answer relating to your question for the ENV > 3A06 (Climate Change) unit? If you have, thanks, and I will go and > find it - but I know several people have not. Can I ask that they > please forward a 1-2 A4 answer to me asap . These have to be > reformatted and collated ready for the question scrutiny meeting > being held early next week. Thanks > Keith > > > > -- > 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\model_answer_clare.doc" 3309. 2008-02-12 17:36:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:36:47 -0500 from: "James Hansen" subject: Re: Feb 7-8 to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil, Was out of contact with e-mail -- just catching up now -- turned out that my time was totally taken up on Friday by interviews etc., especially BBC documentaries, so I missed the Friday sessions and the bird you mention -- best was Wednesday in Southampton -- a few new good contacts -- will send draft of a new paper soon. Best, Jim On Feb 6, 2008 8:21 AM, Phil Jones <[1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote: > Jim, I see you're down for a meeting in London tomorrow and Friday. I have been having something of a run in with a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard's life awful in French. If you're there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he's just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn't warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn't be difficult!! I'm lecturing here in Norwich to students so can't make it to London. If you're not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1489. 2008-02-13 07:27:44 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk, mostafajafari@libero.it, jafarimostafa@yahoo.com date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:27:44 +0330 from: "mostafajafari" subject: Re: Consultation and request to: "Keith Briffa" Subject: Consultation and request Dear Keith Thank you very much for your kind response, support and also readiness for collaboration on the project. More information on my project: 1- Project is entitled "Investigation on Climate Change Effects on Forest Ecosystems in Gilan and Mazandaran Provinces with Emphasize of Wood Dendrology Studies" 2- Project areas are in Hyrcanian forest zone in North of Iran, in southern part of Caspian Sea, on northern slop of Albourz mountain range. Hyrcanian forest is a narrow line of temperate forest with rainfall from more than 2000 mm per year in west down to about 600 mm per year in east. First phase of the project is for a period of three years. 3- First, we want to select sites and then tree species. Nature of tree rings and distance to meteorological stations and availability of data are important factors for these selections. We concentrate on dendroclimatology, to study effect of climate change on forest ecosystems. Candidate tree species mainly could be among Beech (Fagus orientalis), Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), Maple (Acer velutinum), Oak (Quercus castaneifolia), Alder (Alnus subcordata) or in second priority among Linden (Tilia), Walnut (Juglans), Chestnut (Castanea), Poplar (Populus), or Ash (Fraxinus excelsior). 4- Then we trying to take specimens by coring or discs (if harvesting is in processes). 5- Measurements of tree rings width (crossdating by skeleton plotting) 6- Tree ring proxy 7- Dendrology analysis for chronology and climate elements correlations. Following topics could be considered for cooperation between our Research Institute and your University: 1- Consultation on project framework and methodology confirmation. 2- Technical and/or financial assistances on, for example, related software for data analysis. 3- Field visit. 4- Publications. 5- An agreement on research collaboration may be drafted with more details. 5- A joint research project might be possible to be identified. I would also be happy to know that, how it can be possible for me to spend a short fellowship on dendroclimatology in your lab? Once again thanks for your positive reaction and hoping for fruitful future cooperation. Best regards, Mostafa Jafari (Ph.D) ([1] http://www.intecol.net/pages/002_personal.php?id=mjafari&ma=2) -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa To: mostafajafari@rifr-ac.ir Cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:48:22 +0000 Subject: Re: Consultation and request Dear Mostafa I am happy to try and lend support where possible. We here would collaborate and advise if you think this is useful. We would need more detail of our expected contribution in terms of time - but we would be unable to offer any financial support due to lack of resources. Please let me know what practical help we could offer. best wishes Keith and other people working with tree-ring data (Tom. Phil, Tim) At 07:02 28/01/2008, you wrote: >Dr. Keith R. Briffa, >Climate Research Unit, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich > >Subject: Consultation and request > >Dear Keith > >I hope this email reach you in good health and active position as before. >As lead author, during our work on preparation of fourth assessment report >(AR4) of IPCC, we faced with very scare references -base upon publication >of research results- in the Central Asia and Middle East. This gap needs >to be filled with research work. Without complete set of data and >information from all part of the earth it wouldn't be possible to have >precise and correct climate projection for the world. >I proposed a research project in Research Institute of Forests and >Rangelands ( [2]http://www.rifr-ac.ir/english/ ) entitled "Investigation on >Climate Change Effects on Forest Ecosystems in Gilan and Mazandaran >Provinces with Emphasize of Wood Dendrology Studies" and as project >director (manager), I am trying to contact with experienced people for >consultation and sharing lab methodologies. >In this project a position for an international advisor included. By >this letter >I ask you to response kindly to the following requests: >Is it possible for you to kindly accept to cooperate as project advisor? >If yes, with your agreement even, we possibly can identify a joint project? >Secondly how would it be possible for me to spent scientific fellowship in >your lab in related to dendroclimatology? >You may be familiar with Caspian (Hyrcanian) forest in Iran, but for your >further information a small description is given here. > >888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 >I.R. of Iran is located in the North Temperate Zone from 25 to 40 degrees >latitude and 44 to 63 degrees longitude, with a total area of >approximately 1,650,000 square kilometers. A 50% of total lands area is >covered with high mountain ranges. Elevations range from 26 meters below >sea level on the shores of the Caspian Sea to 5860 meters above sea level >at the pick of the Mt. Damavand. >Drought or water deficiency is one of the most critical climatic factors >in Iran. About 50% of Iran can be classified as arid or semi-arid zones. >Climate parameters, particularly precipitation varies significantly in >different parts of the country. There is not a good annual rainfall >distribution in most regions of Iran, which limits the plant development >and growth. Not only high temperature in southern, central and lowlands of >Iran is a limiting factor, but also low temperature in northern, western >and highlands is another limiting factor too. >In the North of Iran in southern part of Caspian Sea, on northern slop of >Albourz mountain range, Hyrcanian forest is a narrow line of temperate >forest with rainfall up to 2000 mm per year. These forests are natural and >productive. The elevation range of the Hyrcanian district is from below >sea level up to 2700 m; this promotes to recognize different formations >from 'resistant to cold' up to 'sensitive to cold' in these forests. >The Caspian region receives the larger part of the country's precipitation >while the central desert (Dasht-e-Lut) is faced with permanent drought. >Forest ecological zones in Iran could be categorized as follow: >a) North, Caspian forest, b) West, Zagros forest, c) North West, Arasbaran >forest, d) South, Subtropical forest in Persian Gulf areas, and e) >Central, Scattering forests. >Some of the main species of Caspian forest could be listed as Fagus >orientalis, Carpinus betulus, Acer velutinum, Quercus castanifolia, >Fraxinus excelsior. >88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 > >Would you please let us have your response as early as your conveniences. >Thank you very much in advance for attention. > >Regards, > >Mostafa Jafari (Ph.D) >( [3]http://www.intecol.net/pages/002_personal.php?id=mjafari&ma=2) > >Tel. office: (009821 - 44195901 - 6) >Tel. direct: (009821 - 44190390) >Fax: (009821 - 44196575) >Mobile: (0098 921 209 8442) -- 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/ 4184. 2008-02-13 09:17:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 13 09:17:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Feb 7-8 to: "James Hansen" Jim, I talked to the BBC on Monday and was told they had interviewed you and talked about a program series they are planning on global warming history. I did email someone else who was going to be in London for the meeting, but he hasn't replied. Probably nothing happened. Keep up the good work! Keep sending the papers. I do read them! Even though it's been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino! Cheers Phil At 22:36 12/02/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Was out of contact with e-mail -- just catching up now -- turned out that my time was totally taken up on Friday by interviews etc., especially BBC documentaries, so I missed the Friday sessions and the bird you mention -- best was Wednesday in Southampton -- a few new good contacts -- will send draft of a new paper soon. Best, Jim On Feb 6, 2008 8:21 AM, Phil Jones <[1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk> wrote: > Jim, I see you're down for a meeting in London tomorrow and Friday. I have been having something of a run in with a French scientist called Vincent Courtillot. He is making Edouard Bard's life awful in French. If you're there on the Friday when Vincent is talking then tell him he's just completely wrong. He will likely say the climate isn't warming and even if it was it has little to do with greenhouse gases. So shouldn't be difficult!! I'm lecturing here in Norwich to students so can't make it to London. If you're not there on the Friday, just make sure one or two reasonable scientists are aware that they have invited a bit of rogue! 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1041. 2008-02-13 10:20:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 13 10:20:00 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8 to: Robert Marsh Bob, Thanks for the summary - more than I was expecting. If you can send me the two offending abstracts when you have some time. Courtillot doesn't seem to realise there are 4 groups - 2 in the US, the Russians still update theirs and then us. From reviewing and rejecting some of his papers, he seems to analyse the data in mysterious ways. I've told him where he can get the data, but he only seems to want the stuff we use here. He forgets the ocean and doesn't seem to want to read the IPCC report. I did hear from Jim. As I expected he was just there for his talk - although he did say he had some good an useful discussions with people at NOC, Soton. He later gave several interviews to journalists - the BBC and was in the Sunday Times last weekend. Cheers Phil At 09:52 13/02/2008, you wrote: Phil - The meeting was rather bizarre in scope, with positions ranging from "IPCC too cautious" (Hansen, Siddall) to "IPCC wrong" (see below). It was only modestly attended, but by an eclectic mix of people (30-50 at any one time). Most talks were sincere and specific in focus (volcanoes, ice sheets, CO2 sequestration, etc.). To be honest, I attended (and contributed a poster) to support my head-of-school (Andrew Roberts, a geomagnetist), who organized the meeting. He knows Courtillot from his discipline & invited him, but Andrew is no skeptic himself - indeed he's driving efforts at NOCS to reduce our carbon footprint. There were two climate skepic talks: Vincent Courtillot and Arnold & Robinson, "Solar modulation of atmospheric transport processes" (Dept. Physics & Astronomy, U. Leicester). Courtillot was fairly rude about the groups contributing air temperature data to the AR4, also ridiculing the fact that only two groups work on such important data (he expects more international competition, hence his belated efforts). He claims that the raw data is witheld due to some agreement - the point you to which you refer below. Based on his limited analysis of European (and a few N. American) station data, he concludes most continental scale warming comprises rapid regime shifts, inevitably linked to the sun (but without explanation). Pressed for an opinion, he believes that CO2 has a negligible influence on climate, and that by 2050 the world will be no warmer than the MWP. I wanted to question him publicly (on the evidence from other changes such as increasing OHC) but I didn't get the chance due to heavy & inevitable questioning on ethics of his casual attitude towards climate change. The other talk was more scientifically searching, drawing attention to influence of coronal mass ejections on the mesosphere, residual atmospheric circulation & teleconnections between high/low atmosphere & high/low latitudes that support the extent & pattern of surface warming. Arnold also claimed that CO2 doesn't really matter. I did pose a question to him, asking how he can ignore all the AR4 model evidence for attribution of 20th century warming to CO2, but he dismisses all OAGCMs as flawed in under-representing the high atmosphere/solar influence. I have abstracts for both talks that I can send on - are you interested to see them? Regards, Bob. On 6 Feb 2008, at 15:43, Phil Jones wrote: Bob, If you can send me a couple of sentences next week sometime that would be good. If Courtillot should go on about the CRU station data, then he can get almost the same data from NCDC. As you know, we do release the gridded data, which is what everybody wants. Cheers Phil At 14:39 06/02/2008, you wrote: Phil - I am indeed presenting a poster at the meeting tomorrow/Friday. I appreciate the forewarning! Speak soon - Bob. On 6 Feb 2008, at 13:36, Phil Jones wrote: Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5131. 2008-02-13 16:46:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ian.allison@aad.gov.au, neville.nicholls@arts.monash.edu.au, fichefet@astr.ucl.ac.be, mati@at.fcen.uba.ar, randall@atmos.colostate.edu, philip@atmos.washington.edu, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, arinke@awi-potsdam.de, peter.lemke@awi.de, bojariu@b.astral.ro, martin.heimann@bgc-jena.mpg.de, r.colman@bom.gov.au, xiaoye_02@cams.cma.gov.cn, yukihiro.nojiri@cao.go.jp, artale@casaccia.enea.it, sumi@ccsr.u-tokyo.ac.jp, hauglustaine@cea.fr, pasb@cea.fr, pierre.friedlingstein@cea.fr, schulz@cea.fr, t.k.berntsen@cicero.uio.no, menendez@cima.fcen.uba.ar, joos@climate.unibe.ch, stocker@climate.unibe.ch, derzhang@cma.gov.cn, pmzhai@cma.gov.cn, qdh@cma.gov.cn, zhaozc@cma.gov.cn, marengo@cptec.inpe.br, Ian.Watterson@csiro.au, penny.whetton@csiro.au, unni@darya.nio.org, jhc@dmi.dk, robted@eas.gatech.edu, anny.cazenave@easynet.fr, francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca, Greg.Flato@ec.gc.ca, john.fyfe@ec.gc.ca, ken.denman@ec.gc.ca, hewitson@egs.uct.ac.za, ulrike.lohmann@env.ethz.ch, piers@env.leeds.ac.uk, P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk, djacob@fas.harvard.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, gunnar.myhre@geo.uio.no, heinze@gfi.uib.no, drind@giss.nasa.gov, jouni.raisanen@helsinki.fi, cdccc@hotmail.com, thomas@hotmail.com, yluo@hotmail.com, zongci_zhao@hotmail.com, gaoxj@ictp.trieste.it, artaxo@if.usp.br, jwillebrand@ifm-geomar.de, scw@io.as.harvard.edu, matsuno@jamstec.go.jp, amnat_c@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th, Albert.Klein.Tank@knmi.nl, dorlandv@knmi.nl, ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar, raynaud@lgge.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr, taylor13@llnl.gov, letreut@lmd.jussieu.fr, Sandrine.Bony@lmd.jussieu.fr, Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, ciais@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, masson@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, kattsov@main.mgo.rssi.ru, jayes@mecheng.iisc.ernet.in, c.mauritzen@met.no, jknganga@meteo.go.ke, jorge.carrasco@meteochile.cl, j.m.gregory@metoffice.gov.uk, james.murphy@metoffice.gov.uk, jim.haywood@metoffice.gov.uk, peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk, richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk, richard.jones@metoffice.gov.uk, richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk, wontk@metri.re.kr, rprinn@mit.edu, s.raper@mmu.ac.uk, pldsdias@model.iag.usp.br, kitoh@mri-jma.go.jp, noda@mri-jma.go.jp, derzhang@msn.com, mokssit@mtpnet.gov.ma, hegerl@nc.rr.com, layesarr@netscape.net, fujii@nipr.ac.jp, d.lowe@niwa.co.nz, j.renwick@niwa.co.nz, d.wratt@niwa.cri.nz, david.Easterling@noaa.gov, david.w.fahey@noaa.gov, Isaac.Held@noaa.gov, martin.manning@noaa.gov, Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov, Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, Sydney.Levitus@noaa.gov, thomas.c.peterson@noaa.gov, v.ramaswamy@noaa.gov, tzhang@nsidc.org, ckshum@osu.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, apitman@penman.es.mq.edu.au, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, hanawa@pol.geophys.tohoku.ac.jp, ram@prl.ernet.in, ralley@psu.edu, dingyh@public.bta.net.cn, jwren@public.lz.gs.cn, b.j.hoskins@rdg.ac.uk, bsoden@rsmas.miami.edu, gul@sail.msk.ru, raga@servidor.unam.mx, victormr@servidor.unam.mx, jlean@ssd5.nrl.navy.mil, jto@u.arizona.edu, atgaye@ucad.sn, brasseur@ucar.edu, eholland@ucar.edu, knutti@ucar.edu, lindam@ucar.edu, meehl@ucar.edu, ottobli@ucar.edu, trenbert@ucar.edu, wcollins@ucar.edu, mprather@uci.edu, ltalley@ucsd.edu, mjmolina@ucsd.edu, rsomerville@ucsd.edu, c.lequere@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, n.gillett@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, georg.kaser@uibk.ac.at, penner@umich.edu, laprise.rene@uqam.ca, n.bindoff@utas.edu.au, weaver@uvic.ca, anthony.chen@uwimona.edu.jm, cubasch@vr-web.de, Rupa Kumar Kolli , r.ramesh@yahoo.co.in, dolago@yahoo.co.uk, ambenje@yahoo.com, busuioc@yahoo.com, david.parker@yahoo.com, jorcar59@yahoo.com, rahim_f@yahoo.com, solomina@yandex.ru date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0500 from: J Shukla subject: Future of the IPCC: to: IPCC-Sec Dear All, I would like to respond to some of the items in the attached text on issues etc. in particular to the statement in the section 3.1.1 (sections 3: Drivers of required change in the future). "There is now greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance in the work of IPCC, which could provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for action". 1. While it is true that a vast majority of the public and the policymakers have accepted the reality of human influence on climate change (in fact many of us were arguing for stronger language with a higher level of confidence at the last meetings of the LAs), how confident are we about the projected regional climate changes? I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional (climate) that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for "action" at regional scale. I am not referring to mitigation, I am strictly referring to science based adaptation. For example, we can not advise the policymakers about re-building the city of New Orleans - or more generally about the habitability of the Gulf-Coast - using climate models which have serious deficiencies in simulating the strength, frequency and tracks of hurricanes. We will serve society better by enhancing our efforts on improving our models so that they can simulate the statistics of regional climate fluctuations; for example: tropical (monsoon depressions, easterly waves, hurricanes, typhoons, Madden-Julian oscillations) and extratropical (storms, blocking) systems in the atmosphere; tropical instability waves, energetic eddies, upwelling zones in the oceans; floods and droughts on the land; and various manifestations (ENSO, monsoons, decadal variations, etc.) of the coupled ocean-land-atmosphere processes. It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability. Of course, even a hypothetical, perfect model does not guarantee accurate prediction of the future regional climate, but at the very least, our suggestion for action will be based on the best possible science. It is urgently required that the climate modeling community arrive at a consensus on the required accuracy of the climate models to meet the "greater demand for a higher level of policy relevance". 2. Is "model democracy" a valid scientific method? The "I" in the IPCC desires that all models submitted by all governments be considered equally probable. This should be thoroughly discussed, because it may have serious implications for regional adaptation strategies. AR4 has shown that model fidelity and model sensitivity are related. The models used for IPCC assessments should be evaluated using a consensus metric. 3. Does dynamical downscaling for regional climate change provide a robust scientific basis for action? Is there a consensus in the climate modeling community on the validity of regional climate prediction by dynamical downscaling? A large number of dynamical downscaling efforts are underway worldwide. This is not necessarily because it is meaningful to do it, but simply because it is possible to do it. It is not without precedent that quite deficient climate models are used by large communities simply because it is convenient to use them. It is self-evident that if a coarse resolution IPCC model does not correctly capture the large-scale mean and transient response, a high-resolution regional model, forced by the lateral boundary conditions from the coarse model, can not improve the response. Considering the important role of multi-scale interactions and feedbacks in the climate system, it is essential that the IPCC-class global models themselves be run at sufficiently high resolution. Regards, Shukla ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IPCC-Sec wrote: > Dear LAs & CLAs, > > Please find attached a letter and issues related to the future of the > IPCC. > > With kind regards, > > Annie > > IPCC Secretariat > WMO > 7bis, Avenue de la Paix > P.O. Box 2300 > 1211 Geneva 2 > SWITZERLAND > Tel: +41 22 730 8208/8254/8284 > Fax: +41 22 730 8025/8013 > Email: IPCC-Sec@wmo.int > Website: http://www.ipcc.ch > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > > 1955. 2008-02-14 12:45:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Feb 14 12:45:13 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Tom Wigley (wigley@ucar.edu) has sent you a news story from to: Tom, Dave Bromwich's papers (one in JGR an done in GRL) in 2007 are both about how poor Reanalyses are in the Antarctic cf the Arctic. Main issue is that both NCEP and ERA-40 rejected most of the surface data prior to 1979 and ERA-40 worked hard to get mores sondes in from the BAS Reader project, but then screwed up getting these in. So not sure what this news alert is about. Even in the Peninsula, the warming is probably just significant. The SD is amazingly high in this region. Cheers Phil At 23:38 13/02/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Interesting re the Antarctic paper -- which I have not read. I'm very suspicious of this. SNR is such that one cannot usefully compare models and obs -- not to mention obs uncertainties, and problems with getting the sfce signal effect of ozone depletion. Re the latter, Susan Solomon thinks the models are very poor at this. Tom. "Climate change, gender differences, health among EurekAlert! 10 Most Pop= ular Stories in 2007" [1]http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/aaft-ccg011008.php ___________________________________________________________ This message was sent from EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS, the science society. Visit [2]http://www.eurekalert.org for more breaking science, health and technology news. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 491. 2008-02-15 08:53:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thomas R Karl , "'Philip D. Jones'" , "Thorne, Peter" , carl mears date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:53:36 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: Additional calculations] to: Richard W Reynolds Dear Dick, I'm forwarding an email that I sent out several days ago. For the last month, I've been working hard to respond to a recent paper by David Douglass, John Christy, Benjamin Pearson, and Fred Singer. The paper claims that the conclusions of our CCSP Report were incorrect, and that there is a fundamental discrepancy between simulated and observed temperature changes in the tropical troposphere. Douglass et al. also assert that models cannot represent the "observed" differential warming of the surface and troposphere. To address these claims, I've been updating some of the comparisons of models and observations that we did for the CCSP Report, now using newer observational datasets (among them NOAA ERSST-v2 and v3). As you can see from the forwarded email, the warming rates of tropical SSTs are somewhat different for ERSST-v2 and v3 - ERSST-v3 warms by less than v2. Do you understand why this is? With best regards, and hope you are well! 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; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:52 -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 m1E2YMTv008791; Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:52 -0800 X-Attachments: LAST_IJC_figure04.pdf X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5229"; a="26979778" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,349,1199692800"; d="pdf'?scan'208";a="26979778" Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29]) by smtp.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 13 Feb 2008 18:34:51 -0800 Message-ID: <47B3A8CB.90605@llnl.gov> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:34:51 -0800 From: Ben Santer Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov Organization: LLNL User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: santer1@llnl.gov, Peter Thorne , Stephen Klein , Susan Solomon , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Phil Jones , Steve Sherwood , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." , peter gleckler Subject: Additional calculations References: <200801121320.26705.John.Lanzante@noaa.gov> <478C528C.8010606@llnl.gov> <478EC287.8030008@llnl.gov> <1200567390.8038.35.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20080117140720.022259c0@llnl.gov> <1200995209.23799.95.camel@eld443.desktop.frd.metoffice.com> <47962FD1.1020303@llnl.gov> In-Reply-To: <47962FD1.1020303@llnl.gov> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------060600010907080200090109" Dear folks, Sorry about the delay in sending you the next version of our manuscript. I decided that I needed to perform some additional calculations. I was concerned that we had not addressed the issue of "differential warming" of the surface and troposphere - an issue which Douglass et al. HAD considered. Our work thus far shows that there are no fundamental inconsistencies between simulated and observed temperature trends in individual tropospheric layers (T2 and T2LT). But we had not performed our "paired trends" test for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference time series. This is a much tougher test to pass: differencing strongly damps the correlated variability in each "pair" of surface and T2LT time series. Because of this noise reduction, the standard error of the linear trend in the difference series is typically substantially smaller than the size of the standard error in an individual surface or T2LT time series. This makes it easier to reject the null hypothesis of "no significant difference between simulated and observed trends". In the CCSP Report, the behavior of the trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series led us to note that: "Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics". So it seemed wise to re-examine this "differential warming" issue. I felt that if we ignored it, Douglass et al. would have grounds for criticizing our response. I've now done the "paired trends" test with the trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The results are quite interesting. They are at variance with the above-quoted finding of the CCSP Report. The new results I will describe show that the "potential discrepancies" in the tropics have largely been resolved. Here's what I did. I used three different observational estimates of tropical SST changes. These were from NOAA-ERSST-v2, NOAA-ERSST-v3, and HadISST1. It's my understanding that NOAA-ERSST-v3 and HadISST1 are the most recent SST products of NCDC and the Hadley Centre. I'm also using T2LT data from RSS v3.0 and UAH v5.2. Here are the tropical (20N-20S) trends in these five datasets over the 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999, together with their 1-sigma adjusted standard errors (in brackets): UAH v5.2 0.060 (+/-0.137) RSS v3.0 0.166 (+/-0.130) HADISST1 0.108 (+/-0.133) NOAA-ERSST-v2 0.100 (+/-0.131) NOAA-ERSST-v3 0.077 (+/-0.121) (all trends in degrees C/decade). The trends in the three SST datasets are (by definition) calculated from anomaly data that have been spatially-averaged over tropical oceans. The trends in T2LT are calculated from anomaly data that have been spatially averaged over land and ocean. It is physically reasonable to do the differencing over different domains, since the temperature field throughout the tropical troposphere is more or less on the moist adiabatic lapse rate set by convection over the warmest waters. These observational trend estimates are somewhat different from those available to us at the time of the CCSP Report. This holds for both T2LT and SST. For T2LT, the RSS trend used in the CCSP Report and in the Santer et al. (2005) Science paper was roughly 0.13 degrees C/decade. As you can see from the Table given above, it is now ca. 0.17 degrees C/decade. Carl tells me that this change is largely due to a change in how he and Frank adjust for inter-satellite biases. This adjustment now has a latitudinal dependence, which it did not have previously. The tropical SST trends used in the CCSP Report were estimated from earlier versions of the Hadley Centre and NOAA SST data, and were of order 0.12 degrees C/decade. The values estimated from more recent datasets are lower - and markedly lower in the case of NOAA-ERSST-v3 (0.077 degrees C/decade). The reasons for this downward shift in the estimated warming of tropical SSTs are unclear. As Carl pointed out in an email that he sent me earlier today: "One important difference is that post 1985, NOAA-ERSST-v3 directly ingests "bias adjusted" SST data from AVHRR, a big change from v2, which didn't use any satellite data (directly). AVHRR is strongly affected in the tropics by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. If the "bias adjustment" doesn't completely account for this, the trends could be changed". Another possibility is treatment of biases in the buoy data. It would be nice if Dick Reynolds could advise us as to the most likely explanation for the different warming rates inferred from NOAA-ERSST-v2 and v3. Bottom line: The most recent estimates of tropical SST changes over 1979 to 1999 are smaller than we reported in the CCSP Report, while the T2LT trend (at least in RSS) is larger. The trend in the observed difference series, NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT, is now -0.089 degrees C/decade, which is very good agreement with the multi-model ensemble trend in the Ts minus T2LT difference series (-0.085 degrees C/decade). Ironically, if Douglass et al. had applied their flawed "consistency test" to the multi-model ensemble mean trend and the trend in the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT difference series, they would not have been able to conclude that models and observations are inconsistent! Here are the observed trends in the tropical Ts minus T2LT difference series in the six different pairs of Ts and T2LT datasets, together with the number of "Hits" (rejections of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trends) and the percentage rejection rate (based on 49 tests in each case) "Pair" Trend 1-sigma C.I. Hits Rej.Rate HadISST1 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0577 (+/-0.0347) 1 (2.04%) NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0660 (+/-0.0382) 1 (2.04%) NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0890 (+/-0.0350) 0 (0.00%) HadISST1 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0488 (+/-0.0371) 28 (57.14%) NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0405 (+/-0.0403) 25 (51.02%) NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0175 (+/-0.0370) 15 (30.60%) Multi-model ensemble mean -0.0846 Things to note: 1) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, the multi-model ensemble mean trend is well within even the 1-sigma statistical uncertainty of the observed trend. 2) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, there are very few statistically-significant differences between the observed and model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and lower troposphere. 3) For all "pairs" involving UAH T2LT data, there are statistically-significant differences between the observed and model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and lower troposphere. Even in these cases, however, rejection of the null hypothesis is not universal: rejection rates range from 30% to 57%. Clearly, not all models are inconsistent with the observational estimate of "differential warming" inferred from UAH data. These results contradict the "model inconsistent with data" claims of Douglass et al. The attached Figure is analogous to the Figure we currently show in the paper for T2LT trends. Now, however, results are for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series. Rather than showing all six "pairs" of observational results in the top panel, I've chosen to show two pairs only in order to avoid unnecessarily complicating the Figure. I propose, however, that we provide results from all six pairs in a Table. As is visually obvious from the Figure, trends in 46 of the 49 simulated surface-minus-T2LT difference series pairs are within the 2-sigma confidence intervals of the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT trend (the light grey bar). And as is obvious from Panel B, even the Douglass et al. "sigma{SE}" encompasses the difference series trend from the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts/RSS T2LT pair. I think we should show these results in our paper. The bottom line: Use of newer T2LT datasets (RSS) and Ts datasets (NOAA-ERSST-v3, HADISST1) largely removes the discrepancy between tropical surface and tropospheric warming rates. We need to explain why the observational estimates of tropical SST changes are now smaller than they were at the time of the CCSP Report. We will need some help from Dick Reynolds with this. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\LAST_IJC_figure041.pdf" 4603. 2008-02-15 08:55:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:55:32 -0700 from: Aiguo Dai subject: Re: A paper you're doing to: Phil Jones Phil, In Dai (2006, J. Clim), I specifically examined the changes in global (both ocean and land) surface q and RH from 1975-2005 and found that sfc q increases with air temperature while RH remains fairly constand (except a few regions in India and the central US where RH increased). Since surface water/latent heat flux is affected, in part, only by RH, not q itself, the changes in surface humidity should not be a major contributor to changes in evaporation. At the last Fall AGU meeting, I showed some prelimiary results on trends in surface wind speed over the globe during the last 30 yrs or so. The sfc obs. show an apparent decreasing trend in surface wind speed over most of the Eurasia, N.A. and other land areas. Although this is consistent with decreasing pan evaporation, I am still trying to make sure the wind data are not showing nonclimatic changes. Aiguo Phil Jones wrote: Aiguo, Thanks. It wasn't me slowing the ms down! Another factor in addition to wind and radiation is vapour pressure. In case you've not seen the attached here it is. Vapour Pressue and q are going up as T goes up. RH stays much the same. We've submitted a longer paper on this dataset. It is rather short though - only going back to 1973. Cheers Phil At 16:49 14/02/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, The manuscript is attached, which took a while to get through the review process, but look like it will be accepted after some revision. The main conclusion is that changes in wind speed and sfc radiation may be important in water balance calculation for wet regions. Because the PDSI model considers only T and P changes, its application over wet, energy-limited regions may be questionable. We still need to work out this on a global basis. On the other hand, the PDSI results from Dai et al. (2004) illustrate the potential drying from surface warming and precip changes alone, and this drying appears to have happened over many regions (e.g., most Africa, etc.). Aiguo Phil Jones wrote: Aiguo, I hear you're doing a paper with Hobbins, Roderick and Farquhar. Is it possible to send me a copy of 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 [1]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: [2]adai@ucar.edu Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [3]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, 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 [4]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: [5]adai@ucar.edu Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA 2784. 2008-02-15 09:21:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:21:53 +0000 (GMT) from: David Lister subject: Re: Indicators of Climate Change in the UK (fwd) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:17:56 +0000 From: Tim Sparks To: D.Lister@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: Indicators of Climate Change in the UK yes very keen to have SST; if it doesnt show an increase I willl go out and buy a hat and then eat it. I can probably draft your indicators based on the old text and then let you edit them if thats easier? Tim >>> David Lister 15/02/08 09:05 >>> Tim, As you will see, I have only sent "raw" updates. At the time of production, I did not realize that you were revising the format. I guess that we will have to be involved with any new text that fits in with the new format. I don't see this as a problem. Phil Jones has given me the location of the SST data that may do the job for an SST indicator series. Are you still up for this one (depending on how the series looks)? Cheers David On Fri, 15 Feb 2008, Tim Sparks wrote: > David > Many thanks. I'll have a look over these and get back to you. I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall on this project so I am very grateful for your input. > Tim > >>>> David Lister 14/02/08 15:42 >>> > Tim, > > I have attached a few files that I produced back in November - for the > updating exercise. For some reason I did not send these to you at that > time! I hope that the file names tell you what they are. I hope that the > CET stats agree with the ones you have produced! I have provided overlap > with earlier data for checking purposes. Let me know of any problems. > > We did think about the SST indicator back in November. Phil Jones may be > able to help here. I have reminded him. > > Cheers > > David > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Tim Sparks wrote: > >> Dear all >> I have just started drafting some revised indicators see attached. Apologies to the "authors" who haven't seen these. These will be web based only so should be simpler, in language and amount of text. I am hoping for a clean modern web site with good images. >> >> I am suggesting we drop any previous numbering so that we can add and remove indicators as we see fit; we are, after all, not restricted by defra any more. We can be a bit more imaginative in what we put in, providing we can explain it to Joe Public. I have no problem, at all, with re-using indicators prepared for other purposes. >> >> I have suggested two graphs (only one where it is a climate variable) followed by four simple paragraphs. >> >> - what does this show? >> - why is it important? >> - what drives the changes? >> - want to know more? >> >> with the "technical bits" as a button to a separate page. >> >> logos and images will be added. >> >> We will need the data in order to generate the graphs in the same format, and will need to create the means of automatically updating, for example you emailing the web people at CEH Lancaster. I think the website will have to grow gradually as I don't want to wait for all indicators to be ready before getting going. >> >> So PLEASE generate the indicators. I want to get this all done and dusted, and procedures in place for future years before Monks Wood is closed. >> >> Remember we dont have to use the same indicators as previously if there are additional or better indicators available. >> >> best wishes >> Tim >> ########################### >> Dr Tim Sparks >> Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Tel: +44 (0)1487 773381 (Switchboard) >> Monks Wood +44 (0)1487 772461 (Direct) >> Abbots Ripton Fax: +44 (0)1487 773467 >> Huntingdon Email: ths@ceh.ac.uk >> Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS www.ceh.ac.uk/sections/epms/TimSparks.htm >> UK >> >> Acta Ornithologica www.miiz.waw.pl/periodicals/acta-ornithologica/index.php >> Annals of Applied Biology www.blackwellpublishing.com/aab >> Biological Conservation www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon >> Global Change Biology www.blackwellpublishing.com/GCB >> Nature in Cambridgeshire www.natureincambridgeshire.org.uk >> >> Robert Marsham tricentenary in 2008 www.robertmarsham.co.uk >> PHENOLOGY in partnership with The Woodland Trust on www.phenology.org.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. >> >> > *************************************************************************** > David Lister > Climatic Research Unit > School of Environmental Science > University of East Anglia > NORWICH NR1 7TJ > United Kingdom > > Telephone +44 (0)1603 593818 > Fax +44 (0)1603 507784 > > CRU web site http://www.cru.uea.ac.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. > > -- 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. 2834. 2008-02-15 10:01:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:01:31 -0000 (GMT) from: "Adrian Matthews" subject: [Env.all] Met, Ocean, Climate seminar today to: env.all@uea.ac.uk, oceanography@uea.ac.uk Dear all, Today's met, ocean, climate seminar will be given by Gabriele Hegerl (University of Edinburgh) on "Towards detecting and attributing impact relevant climate change", at 1 pm in the ZICER seminar room. All are welcome. Gabi was the lead convening author on the IPCC chapter on climate change attribution. We are going for lunch beforehand. If anyone would like to join us, please meet in the ENV foyer at 12. Regards Adrian -- Dr Adrian Matthews School of Environmental Sciences / School of Mathematics University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Email: a.j.matthews@uea.ac.uk Internet: http://envam1.env.uea.ac.uk _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 4791. 2008-02-15 11:59:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 15 11:59:49 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A warning for Feb 7-8 to: Robert Marsh Bob, Thanks for the abstracts. Courtillot can happily go off and reinvent the wheel. Why dos he need daily data to look at large-scale temperature change? Estimating global mean T is simple. Why does he need to complicate it ! Cheers Phil At 09:52 13/02/2008, you wrote: Phil - The meeting was rather bizarre in scope, with positions ranging from "IPCC too cautious" (Hansen, Siddall) to "IPCC wrong" (see below). It was only modestly attended, but by an eclectic mix of people (30-50 at any one time). Most talks were sincere and specific in focus (volcanoes, ice sheets, CO2 sequestration, etc.). To be honest, I attended (and contributed a poster) to support my head-of-school (Andrew Roberts, a geomagnetist), who organized the meeting. He knows Courtillot from his discipline & invited him, but Andrew is no skeptic himself - indeed he's driving efforts at NOCS to reduce our carbon footprint. There were two climate skepic talks: Vincent Courtillot and Arnold & Robinson, "Solar modulation of atmospheric transport processes" (Dept. Physics & Astronomy, U. Leicester). Courtillot was fairly rude about the groups contributing air temperature data to the AR4, also ridiculing the fact that only two groups work on such important data (he expects more international competition, hence his belated efforts). He claims that the raw data is witheld due to some agreement - the point you to which you refer below. Based on his limited analysis of European (and a few N. American) station data, he concludes most continental scale warming comprises rapid regime shifts, inevitably linked to the sun (but without explanation). Pressed for an opinion, he believes that CO2 has a negligible influence on climate, and that by 2050 the world will be no warmer than the MWP. I wanted to question him publicly (on the evidence from other changes such as increasing OHC) but I didn't get the chance due to heavy & inevitable questioning on ethics of his casual attitude towards climate change. The other talk was more scientifically searching, drawing attention to influence of coronal mass ejections on the mesosphere, residual atmospheric circulation & teleconnections between high/low atmosphere & high/low latitudes that support the extent & pattern of surface warming. Arnold also claimed that CO2 doesn't really matter. I did pose a question to him, asking how he can ignore all the AR4 model evidence for attribution of 20th century warming to CO2, but he dismisses all OAGCMs as flawed in under-representing the high atmosphere/solar influence. I have abstracts for both talks that I can send on - are you interested to see them? Regards, Bob. On 6 Feb 2008, at 15:43, Phil Jones wrote: Bob, If you can send me a couple of sentences next week sometime that would be good. If Courtillot should go on about the CRU station data, then he can get almost the same data from NCDC. As you know, we do release the gridded data, which is what everybody wants. Cheers Phil At 14:39 06/02/2008, you wrote: Phil - I am indeed presenting a poster at the meeting tomorrow/Friday. I appreciate the forewarning! Speak soon - Bob. On 6 Feb 2008, at 13:36, Phil Jones wrote: Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1871. 2008-02-15 12:16:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 15 12:16:35 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Additional calculations to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, Apologies for not getting back sooner. Doing these difference assessments is very useful, particularly as you've got interesting results. I'm attaching a paper I reviewed (Tom Smith/Dick Reynolds et al) of their new version that has been accepted by J. Climate. My purpose is not for you to get their latest version, which is newer than ERSST-V3, but to point out that any differences you had from CCSP are not due to buoys. You'll see from the paper that buoys could be important, but they aren't confident enough yet about making adjustments for them. Buoys would only affect SST after 2000 - if accepted they would raise SSTs. This could be contentious when it gets into a paper. A second point, I reckon HadSST2 is the latest HC SST dataset and not HADISST1. HadCRUT3 is a merged version of HadSST2 and CRUTEM3. Also attaching the HadSST2 paper from Nick Rayner in 2006. You can download HadSST2 from the site [1]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ It is also on our site. All a useful addition to the paper. It is the surface - LT differences that get talked about. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 02:34 14/02/2008, you wrote: Dear folks, Sorry about the delay in sending you the next version of our manuscript. I decided that I needed to perform some additional calculations. I was concerned that we had not addressed the issue of "differential warming" of the surface and troposphere - an issue which Douglass et al. HAD considered. Our work thus far shows that there are no fundamental inconsistencies between simulated and observed temperature trends in individual tropospheric layers (T2 and T2LT). But we had not performed our "paired trends" test for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference time series. This is a much tougher test to pass: differencing strongly damps the correlated variability in each "pair" of surface and T2LT time series. Because of this noise reduction, the standard error of the linear trend in the difference series is typically substantially smaller than the size of the standard error in an individual surface or T2LT time series. This makes it easier to reject the null hypothesis of "no significant difference between simulated and observed trends". In the CCSP Report, the behavior of the trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series led us to note that: "Comparing trend differences between the surface and the troposphere exposes potential discrepancies between models and observations in the tropics". So it seemed wise to re-examine this "differential warming" issue. I felt that if we ignored it, Douglass et al. would have grounds for criticizing our response. I've now done the "paired trends" test with the trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The results are quite interesting. They are at variance with the above-quoted finding of the CCSP Report. The new results I will describe show that the "potential discrepancies" in the tropics have largely been resolved. Here's what I did. I used three different observational estimates of tropical SST changes. These were from NOAA-ERSST-v2, NOAA-ERSST-v3, and HadISST1. It's my understanding that NOAA-ERSST-v3 and HadISST1 are the most recent SST products of NCDC and the Hadley Centre. I'm also using T2LT data from RSS v3.0 and UAH v5.2. Here are the tropical (20N-20S) trends in these five datasets over the 252-month period from January 1979 to December 1999, together with their 1-sigma adjusted standard errors (in brackets): UAH v5.2 0.060 (+/-0.137) RSS v3.0 0.166 (+/-0.130) HADISST1 0.108 (+/-0.133) NOAA-ERSST-v2 0.100 (+/-0.131) NOAA-ERSST-v3 0.077 (+/-0.121) (all trends in degrees C/decade). The trends in the three SST datasets are (by definition) calculated from anomaly data that have been spatially-averaged over tropical oceans. The trends in T2LT are calculated from anomaly data that have been spatially averaged over land and ocean. It is physically reasonable to do the differencing over different domains, since the temperature field throughout the tropical troposphere is more or less on the moist adiabatic lapse rate set by convection over the warmest waters. These observational trend estimates are somewhat different from those available to us at the time of the CCSP Report. This holds for both T2LT and SST. For T2LT, the RSS trend used in the CCSP Report and in the Santer et al. (2005) Science paper was roughly 0.13 degrees C/decade. As you can see from the Table given above, it is now ca. 0.17 degrees C/decade. Carl tells me that this change is largely due to a change in how he and Frank adjust for inter-satellite biases. This adjustment now has a latitudinal dependence, which it did not have previously. The tropical SST trends used in the CCSP Report were estimated from earlier versions of the Hadley Centre and NOAA SST data, and were of order 0.12 degrees C/decade. The values estimated from more recent datasets are lower - and markedly lower in the case of NOAA-ERSST-v3 (0.077 degrees C/decade). The reasons for this downward shift in the estimated warming of tropical SSTs are unclear. As Carl pointed out in an email that he sent me earlier today: "One important difference is that post 1985, NOAA-ERSST-v3 directly ingests "bias adjusted" SST data from AVHRR, a big change from v2, which didn't use any satellite data (directly). AVHRR is strongly affected in the tropics by the Pinatubo eruption in 1991. If the "bias adjustment" doesn't completely account for this, the trends could be changed". Another possibility is treatment of biases in the buoy data. It would be nice if Dick Reynolds could advise us as to the most likely explanation for the different warming rates inferred from NOAA-ERSST-v2 and v3. Bottom line: The most recent estimates of tropical SST changes over 1979 to 1999 are smaller than we reported in the CCSP Report, while the T2LT trend (at least in RSS) is larger. The trend in the observed difference series, NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT, is now -0.089 degrees C/decade, which is very good agreement with the multi-model ensemble trend in the Ts minus T2LT difference series (-0.085 degrees C/decade). Ironically, if Douglass et al. had applied their flawed "consistency test" to the multi-model ensemble mean trend and the trend in the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT difference series, they would not have been able to conclude that models and observations are inconsistent! Here are the observed trends in the tropical Ts minus T2LT difference series in the six different pairs of Ts and T2LT datasets, together with the number of "Hits" (rejections of the null hypothesis of no significant difference in trends) and the percentage rejection rate (based on 49 tests in each case) "Pair" Trend 1-sigma C.I. Hits Rej.Rate HadISST1 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0577 (+/-0.0347) 1 (2.04%) NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0660 (+/-0.0382) 1 (2.04%) NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT -0.0890 (+/-0.0350) 0 (0.00%) HadISST1 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0488 (+/-0.0371) 28 (57.14%) NOAA-ERSST-v2 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0405 (+/-0.0403) 25 (51.02%) NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus UAH T2LT +0.0175 (+/-0.0370) 15 (30.60%) Multi-model ensemble mean -0.0846 Things to note: 1) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, the multi-model ensemble mean trend is well within even the 1-sigma statistical uncertainty of the observed trend. 2) For all "pairs" involving RSS T2LT data, there are very few statistically-significant differences between the observed and model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and lower troposphere. 3) For all "pairs" involving UAH T2LT data, there are statistically-significant differences between the observed and model-simulated "differential warming" of the tropical surface and lower troposphere. Even in these cases, however, rejection of the null hypothesis is not universal: rejection rates range from 30% to 57%. Clearly, not all models are inconsistent with the observational estimate of "differential warming" inferred from UAH data. These results contradict the "model inconsistent with data" claims of Douglass et al. The attached Figure is analogous to the Figure we currently show in the paper for T2LT trends. Now, however, results are for trends in the surface-minus-T2LT difference series. Rather than showing all six "pairs" of observational results in the top panel, I've chosen to show two pairs only in order to avoid unnecessarily complicating the Figure. I propose, however, that we provide results from all six pairs in a Table. As is visually obvious from the Figure, trends in 46 of the 49 simulated surface-minus-T2LT difference series pairs are within the 2-sigma confidence intervals of the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts minus RSS T2LT trend (the light grey bar). And as is obvious from Panel B, even the Douglass et al. "sigma{SE}" encompasses the difference series trend from the NOAA-ERSST-v3 Ts/RSS T2LT pair. I think we should show these results in our paper. The bottom line: Use of newer T2LT datasets (RSS) and Ts datasets (NOAA-ERSST-v3, HADISST1) largely removes the discrepancy between tropical surface and tropospheric warming rates. We need to explain why the observational estimates of tropical SST changes are now smaller than they were at the time of the CCSP Report. We will need some help from Dick Reynolds with this. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 61. 2008-02-18 08:38:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Nathan Gillett , "Williams, Keith" date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 08:38:42 +0000 from: Peter Thorne subject: Re: Any point in answering an email from David Bellamy? to: Kate Willett Kate, I'd make it clear if you do respond that you do not have time to get into a long chain. I would also advise that you liaise with Keith Williams, who I am cc'ing in, *before* you respond. Keith knows all there is to know about our model clouds and can help you make sure that your answer is robust and scientifically sound. However, I would tend to shy away from these types of exchanges myself, partly because they are not encouraged by our management unless through formal channels. It would be useful in giving advice either way if you could forward to us the initial email so that we can advise not just on whether to reply but also content for you. Peter On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 12:47 -0500, Kate Willett wrote: > Hello, > > Please can I have some advice. Looks like David Ballamy read an > article that was written in the Nerc Planet Earth publication about > the Nature paper and wants to know why I didn't include the negative > feedback of clouds. I've had a personal email (inclusive of typos and > mispelling my name) Is there any point me getting into an email > discussion about this? Can I ignore it? > > I'm moving back to the UK in two weeks. I have a month before I start > at the Met Office which I'm using for a bit of travelling but also to > get this paper written. Would it be ok to use CRU library for a couple > of days? I'll pop in and say a quick hello anyway. > > Kate -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs 2421. 2008-02-18 21:05:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: "WCWang" date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:05:41 -0500 from: "Wei-Chyung Wang" subject: SUNYA draft report & action items to: "Thomas.R.Karl" , Tom and Phil, Attached is the subject report dated 2/14, which I received last Saturday (2/16). I need to provide my comments to add to the report for the record. Please keep it confidential. I tried to call Tom this morning, but could not connect both at home and to cell phone. In the last couple of days, I have talked with Professor Zeng (in Beijing) twice and Phil once. I briefed Phil about the Committee findings and Phil told me that he has submitted his recent study on temperature trends in China to GRL, I received the pdf file just a couple of hours ago. Thanks. The best point is that the station moves of whatever the 42-pairs did not matter when compared with the values from 728-stations with adjustment included. On the Zeng side, I have specifically asked her to prepare: (1) a table indicating: --that which of the 42-stations are from the 60-station network where the station history are explicitly included in the DOE report; --that she has examined station history of all others, of course, belonging to the 205-stations network. She told me today, to her best knowledge that six-stations have no moves recorded in the station history, while the rest had "few" moves. (2) a written description about what are the factors and considerations she used to select the stations based on the station history. It is too bad that the original notes were no longer with her because of her office moves since 1990. After reading the draft report and the above information, I would like to know from you two (be specific please, see below), the inputs I should provide to the Committee before 2/28. I intend to answer (refer to page 3 of the draft report): (a) some stations for which there is no evidence of a change in location; (b) needs inputs! (c) is this a statement or question? (d) I will emphasize that we are talking about 1989-90 study using 1954-1983 during which China is poor; China economy really took off around mid-1990s. To Phil: Please provide a few sentences about your recent study indicating that the station move do not matter. I am going to mention explicitly that Phil has agreed to let the study results (in particular figure 6) be used at this stage. Let me know if I have missed any points which need to be brought up. I am leaving on 2/26 to Taipei for an Academia Sinica meeting and will be back 3/10. Certainly, I will call you guys. Cheers, WCW PS My phone contacts: 518-369-4417 (Cell); 518-372-1598 (H); 518-437-8708 (O) Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\080214_SUNYA_draft.pdf" 2744. 2008-02-19 09:24:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Feb 19 09:24:25 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: On behalf of Scott Armstrong to: "O'Neill Saffron Miss \(ENV\)" Saffron, These are all skeptics, but worth at least looking at. Scott Armstrong is a well-known statistician, but he thinks he's the Authority on all things to do with forecasting and prediction. Cheers Phil DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-vers ion:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; bh=Yv+w+5wMVeHGLk8AM0pPAKP0AMXOoBwFh8ba8lsy/fw=; b=bCcC0xAVjYvXqPqHYnNRUQBIu63aOf7HWCxnsajMe69w8UJopWywAZYkJeiUuWGtwNCoh7ct7ftWGFZ/FG9znD XBnRheuZ7ShLIu07ZOe4PZqZDU0NruwVD55n4nzYD9LFFEKAB0UGifPFQkoq+V+nNOoFnSNOHj63f5/jHn5zU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=bzI0ZliaH0IpHXwz5veXDj8kDbQAIwGz6CbE/XEZ9WeKkh6U7/WaznY8vWQC1BiJA3SWg73mVKzSED3SMb4/6+ hJXxW3qaalonnVaTnCmIy9z+x+mcs9RHXfnTkCDdK2UF6HQYVdKGCVwZ4mqsAmiAfVHPK0XQegg7Hlo87eoj4= Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:40:34 -0500 From: "Janice Dow" Sender: janicedow@gmail.com To: dowj@sas.upenn.edu Subject: On behalf of Scott Armstrong X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8ca80dee03740cdb X-UEA-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: -- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Are Polar Bears in danger? Senate testimony by Scott Armstrong, Jan. 30, 2008 Scott Armstrong, Kesten Green and Willie Soon (a physical scientist who has done much research on climate change) audited the forecasting methods used to support the government's strategy to list polar bears as an endangered species. Conclusion? The forecasts of polar bear populations were not derived from scientific forecasting procedures. As Armstrong stated: "On average, the authors [of the government reports] properly applied only 12% of relevant [scientific forecasting] principles. In what occupations would work that follows 12% of proper procedures be considered acceptable? Details, including a video of Armstrongs's six-minute presentation to the U. S. Senate Hearing on polar bears, and the written transcript of the interesting Q&A between Boxer and Armstrong are available at [1]http://theclimatebet.com The most recent version of our our paper, available at [2]http://publicpolicyforecasting.com has been submitted for publication, but we are still seeking peer review. Might you be able to review the paper? Thanks, Scott Armstrong *This email sent on behalf of Scott Armstrong by his research assistant Janice Dow. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 632. 2008-02-19 10:54:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: liqx@cma.gov.cn, "Wei-Chyung Wang" date: Tue Feb 19 10:54:48 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re:Two more questions to: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= Dear Qingxiang, I haven't heard anything yet from JGR - it will likely take about 3 months. I've been talking to Wei-Chyung Wang on the phone over the weekend. He wondered if you can help him. He is hopeful you can send me (and I can send on) any site history information you have about the 42 sites (both rural and urban that we used back in 1990. Back in September last year you sent me the monthly temperature data fro these sites. I could see which ones had been adjusted and which hadn't. What Wei-Chyung and I would like from you is any site history information for these 82 site (you could only find the temperature data for 82 and not all 84 we had used originally). Ideally this would be information on site moves etc., but if you just had information on the number of moves that would be useful. This is more important for the stations we had said were rural in 1990. I've cc'd Wei-Chyung on this email, so you could reply directly to him to say what you can, could or might be able to send to us - in Chinese! Best Regards Phil PS to WCW - Qingxiang can email me from work and home. My emails to CMA seem to disappear, so I send to his home address, and cc to work in case some switch has been unset. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5135. 2008-02-19 15:56:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 15:56:31 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2008JD009964 (Editor - Jose Fuentes): Request to Review from to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2329 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Osborn: I write to ask if you could please serve as a judge for two brief papers. Please give me your opinion as to whether the two enclosed comments (the next is coming soon)are worth publishing in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmosphere. Sincerely, Professor Jose D Fuentes Editor Would you be willing and available to review "Reply to: "Comment on 'Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods', by Mann et al."" by Scott Rutherford, Michael Mann, Eugene Wahl, and Caspar Ammann, submitted for possible publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres? The abstract is: In "Comment on 'Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods', by Mann et al." Smerdon et al., correctly point out that the initial regridding method used by Mann et al., 2007 to map ECHO-g output to the resolution of surface observation data enhanced the variability of the Northern Hemisphere mean series compared to the original model output. This technial issue has no impact on the conclusions of Mann et al., 2007, as we demonstrate in this reply. We also point out that Mann et al., 2007 was not an attempt to compare the CSM and ECHO-g models and demonstrate that detrending the predictand prior to calibration still produces a reconstruction that fails to capture any of the low-frequency variability of the true ECHO-g Northern Hemisphere mean. Please decline the invitation if you think that you are unable to provide an objective review. If you agree to review this manuscript, I would ask for your comments within 30 days from your acceptance. To ACCEPT, click on the link below: 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: 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 Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. Sincerely, Jose Fuentes Associate Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 268. 2008-02-20 12:15:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Feb 20 12:15:57 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Your ENSO series to: David Thompson Dave, Will send on your details to the seminar organizer here. The week of April 28 - May 2 is OK for me. I hope this is what you meant by last week. A few thoughts on the plots. 1. There isn't a drop off in land data around 1945 - nor during WW2. So this is different from the ocean data. Most series are complete or have been slightly infilled during the period in Europe. Berlin for example only missed one day's T obs in April 45. 2. Fuego could be underestimated. 3. It could also be that sulphate emissions were very high at this time - late 60s, early 70s. I'll await the text ! Cheers Phil At 16:18 19/02/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look to you? As for some new results: I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data. The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the global-mean land data (CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the residual global-mean time series. There is nothing here you haven't seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the one in the Nature paper. As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from ~1940-1980; and warmed substantially from 1980 to present. OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate. The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the 'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series. Some key points: 1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal. 2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage). 3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom). 4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data). What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from 1900-1970. -Dave  On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Thanks. Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though.... So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to distant Norwich at some point and also give a talk? Cheers Phil At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote: Phil, I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled. I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it. The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper). I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to come.... -Dave Ă¯Â¿Â¼ On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote: David, For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper. I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO with some of the ENSO-type indices I have. These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier. Cheers Phil At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote: So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see... -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: j.thorpe@nature.com Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST To: davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review Dear Professor Thompson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending your paper out for review. We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers. Yours sincerely Nichola O'Brien Staff Nature For Dr. Joanna Thorpe Associate Editor, Nature Nature Publishing Group -- [1]http://www.nature.com/nature The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; nature@nature.com 968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; nature@naturedc.com * Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [2]www.nature.com/ authors) for information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [3]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [4]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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - David W. J. Thompson [5]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [6]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 Phil, I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled. I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it. The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper). I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to come.... -Dave On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote: David, For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper. I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO with some of the ENSO-type indices I have. These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier. Cheers Phil At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote: So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see... -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: j.thorpe@nature.com Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST To: davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review Dear Professor Thompson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending your paper out for review. We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers. Yours sincerely Nichola O'Brien Staff Nature For Dr. Joanna Thorpe Associate Editor, Nature Nature Publishing Group -- [7]http://www.nature.com/nature The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; nature@nature.com 968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; nature@naturedc.com * Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [8]www.nature.com/authors) for information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [9]http:// blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [10]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 ------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - David W. J. Thompson [11]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [12]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [13]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 Hi Phil, I'd enjoy visiting.... how does the first or last week of April look to you? As for some new results: I've attached two figures. Both focus on the land data. The first figure includes 4 time series. From top to bottom: the global-mean land data (CRUTEM 3); the ENSO fit; the COWL fit; the residual global-mean time series. There is nothing here you haven't seen before - the residual land time series is identical to the one in the Nature paper. As we've discussed, the residual land time series highlights the signature of the volcanos. And as far as low frequency variability goes: the residual land time series supports the IPCC contention that the global warmed from ~1900-1940; did not warm from ~1940-1980; and warmed substantially from 1980 to present. OK.... so now I'm going to play with removing the volcanic signal. There are a lot of ways to do this, and I haven't settled on the best method. For now, I am driving the simple climate model I've been using for ENSO with the Ammann et al. volcanic forcing time series. I get identical results using Crowley's estimate and Sato's estimate. The figure on page 2 shows the effect of removing the volcanic signal. From top to bottom: the the global-mean residual land time series (repeated from the previous figure); the volcanic fit; the 'ENSO/COWL/Volcano' residual land time series. Some key points: 1. the volcanic fit isn't perfect, but captures most of the volcanic signal. 2. the residual time series (bottom of Fig 2) is interesting. If you look closely, it suggests the globe has warmed continuously since 1900 with two exceptions: a 'bite' in the 1970s, and a downwards 'step' in 1945. The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the ocean data. But it's there. (I'm guessing the corresponding change in variance is due to a sudden increase in data coverage). 3. the volcanic fit highlights the fact that the lack of warming in the middle part of the century comes from only two features: the step in 45 and Agung. When Agung is removed, land temperatures march upwards from 1945-1970 (Fig 2 bottom). 4. the bite in the 1970s could be due to an underestimate of the impact of Fuego (the bite is also evident in the SST data). What do you think? The step in 1945 is not as dramatic as the step in the SST data. But it's certainly there. It's evident in the COWL/ENSO residual time series (top of Fig 2): removing Agung simply clarifies that without the step temperatures marched steadily upwards from 1900-1970. -Dave On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, Thanks. Before seeing what you send, I think I'll find it harder to believe something is wrong with the land data. I can be convinced though.... So you're in Reading now. Do you still want to come up to distant Norwich at some point and also give a talk? Cheers Phil At 16:55 18/02/2008, you wrote: Phil, I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled. I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it. The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper). I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to come.... -Dave  On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote: David, For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper. I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO with some of the ENSO-type indices I have. These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier. Cheers Phil At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote: So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see... -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: [14]j.thorpe@nature.com Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST To: [15]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review Dear Professor Thompson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending your paper out for review. We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers. Yours sincerely Nichola O'Brien Staff Nature For Dr. Joanna Thorpe Associate Editor, Nature Nature Publishing Group -- [16]http://www.nature.com/nature The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [17]nature@nature.com 968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [18]nature@naturedc.com * Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [19]www.nature.com/ authors) for information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [20]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [21]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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [22]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 [23]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [24]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 Phil, I'm really sorry for the delay; my family and I have been in transit from the US to the UK this past week, and it's taken a bit for us to get settled. I've attached the ENSO index I've been using. The first month is Jan 1850; the last is Dec 2006. The time series has a silly number of sig figures - that's just how Matlab wanted to save it. The data are in K and are scaled as per the fit to the global-mean (as in the paper). I've got some new results regarding the land data... I'll think you'll find them interesting. I'll pass them along in the next day or so... the main point is that I suspect the land data might also have some spurious cooling in the middle part of the century. More to come.... -Dave On Feb 14, 2008, at 12:35 PM, Phil Jones wrote: David, For a presentation I'm due to make in a few months, can you send me the ENSO and the COWL series that are in Figure 1 in the paper. I'm not sure what I will do with COWL, but I want to compare your ENSO with some of the ENSO-type indices I have. These seem monthly from about the 1860s or maybe earlier. Cheers Phil At 16:49 07/02/2008, you wrote: So it made it past the first hurdle, which is good. My hunch is that the paper will fare OK in review, but you never know with Nature. And it's possible a reviewer will insist on our providing a correction... anyway, we'll see... -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: [25]j.thorpe@nature.com Date: February 7, 2008 3:44:07 AM PST To: [26]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Nature 2008-01-00939 out to review Dear Professor Thompson, Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "A discontinuity in the time series of global-mean surface temperature" to Nature. I am pleased to tell you that we are sending your paper out for review. We will be in touch again as soon as we have received comments from our reviewers. Yours sincerely Nichola O'Brien Staff Nature For Dr. Joanna Thorpe Associate Editor, Nature Nature Publishing Group -- [27]http://www.nature.com/nature The Macmillan Building, 4 Crinan Street, London N1 9XW, UK Tel +44 20 7833 4000; Fax +44 20 7843 4596; [28]nature@nature.com 968 National Press Building, Washington DC 20045-1938, USA Tel +1 202 737 2355; Fax +1 202 628 1609; [29]nature@naturedc.com * Please see NPG's author and referees' website ( [30]www.nature.com/authors) for information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [31]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [32]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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [33]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 [34]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [35]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 [36]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [37]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3475. 2008-02-20 16:19:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "C G Kilsby" , "Sexton, David" date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:19:10 -0000 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: UKCIP08 presentation for Nairobi work programme workshop- to: "Humphrey, Kathryn \(CEOSA\)" Hi Kathryn Some comments below. Overall I have the same comment as on your slides to Defra policymakers, that many of the slides are too difficult. I would have even more concern on this point over the UNFCCC meeting. I also felt the overall tone is too negative - fine for an internal discussion when we have to consider guidance etc but risks leaving the UN audience with the impression that UKCIP08 will be so ridden with "snags" and "criticisms" and "problems" and "misuses" as to be almost worthless. This just isnt the case. Slide 7: better to use the IPCC AR4 one instead of TAR. Slide 8: first bullet is about emissions uncertainty - this will not change in UKCIP08. Just say "no info on model uncertainty" Slide 11: PLEASE DELETE THIS ONE - until published and explained. Slide 12: we dont have weigths cols any more Slide 13: LHS - only one PDF will be available, and not climate sensitivity. Slide 14: despite the header - PLEASE DELETE - too much info too soon. Slide 16: I think Phil and Chris will object to this slide (my invention) as being too simplistic. Slide 17: what does the header meant to imply? suggest you make plain that the availablility of some WG variables is subject to validation. Slide 18: suggest leave off hourly at this stage. Also bullet 4 - "assumes relationships between ppn and other variables will remain..." Slide 19: Seems too negative - suggest headline is "methodological limitations". 1st bullet, prefer: "As with all models and methodologies some assumptions and judgements are made which can affect the results. The use of observations helps to reduce this sensitivity, and these sensitivities willbe investigated and made plain to users, where possible". 3rd bullett:."...in climate models, but there is evidence to show that this may be less important for radiatively driven future changes". If 4th bullett means flux-adjustments, then work done some time ago shows that this doesnt appear to drastically change predictions. Last bullett: statistical downscaling may be OK for temps, but RCM is better for precipitation etc, so delete this suggest. Slide 20: suggest not mention WG limitations twice (its all in Slide 18). I already emailed you about storyline scenarios (usually called spatial analogs) being heavily criticised (in fact dismissed) in TGCIA reports, so please mention this. Slide 22: "strength of evidence for a prticular outcome", not belief. Slides 24-30: suggest dont allow the info to just build up on the LHS, eg the top 3 bullets on Slide 21 are all wrong for the storm surge model. Slide 33: I think the 2nd bullet isnt well worded. dont think the last sentence is fair. Slide 34: I think there is a reasonable case to be made that UKCIP08 is indeed the "best thing ever". But not perfect of course, plenty of ideas for improvenent. Slide 36: Last bullet: just say we have problems getting robust pdfs for some variables. Slide 1: your name is missing! Thats enough for now! Cheers Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] Sent: 19 February 2008 15:30 To: Ag Stevens; Anna Steynor; Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David; Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Kevin Marsh; Elkington, Mark; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Sue Latham Cc: Butt, Adrian (CEOSA) Subject: UKCIP08 presentation for Nairobi work programme workshop- Mexico Hi all, Adrian is off to Mexico in the first week of April to attend a workshop under the Nairobi Work Programme on methods and tools for adaptation. There is no agenda as yet but Adrian intends to give a general presentation on UKCIP08- the general approach and possible uses. I'm going to give him a selection of the slides I did for internal Defra but would be grateful if you let me know if there are any here that you would rather not been used for an international audience. I will take out the results one. Please get back to me on this asap. Also, The UNFCCC has apparently asked MOHC if anyone can attend this meeting. David/Geoff, have you come across this invitation at all? Adrian doesn't want to take anyone off important work like '08, but would be interested if there is any availability to attend this meeting (4-6th March in Mexico City; link here [1]http://unfccc.int/adaptation/sbsta_agenda_item_adaptation/items/4259.php). Kind Regards, Kathryn <<2008-01-31 UKCIP08 Defra teach in.ppt>> 1003. 2008-02-20 16:26:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Wei-Chyung Wang" , "%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4" date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:26:42 +0800 from: subject: Re: Re:Two more questions to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, I ask around and I was told that any site history information shold be permitted by the headquarter of CMA.So I can not provide it to Prof. Wang by myself, but I can tell him that most of the inhomogeneities induced by site moves have been adjusted by us in our homogenized dataset. And espcially for those rural stations,the adjustment would be more belivable without those "false"discontinuities caused by the trends differences between the candidate and reference series. Sorry for the response. But if there are anything I can help, Please tell me when nessisary. Best regards Qingxiang ======= 2008-02-19 18:54:48 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= > >> Dear Qingxiang, > I haven't heard anything yet from JGR - it will likely take >about 3 months. > I've been talking to Wei-Chyung Wang on the phone over the weekend. > He wondered if you can help him. He is hopeful you can send me > (and I can send on) any site history information you have about > the 42 sites (both rural and urban that we used back in 1990. > Back in September last year you sent me the monthly temperature > data fro these sites. I could see which ones had been adjusted and > which hadn't. What Wei-Chyung and I would like from you is any > site history information for these 82 site (you could only find > the temperature data for 82 and not all 84 we had used originally). > Ideally this would be information on site moves etc., but if you just > had information on the number of moves that would be useful. > This is more important for the stations we had said were rural in 1990. > > I've cc'd Wei-Chyung on this email, so you could reply directly to > him to say what you can, could or might be able to send to us - in Chinese! > > Best Regards > Phil > > PS to WCW - Qingxiang can email me from work and home. My emails to > CMA seem to disappear, so I send to his home address, and cc to work in > case some switch has been unset. > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-02-20 3979. 2008-02-20 18:48:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:48:31 +0100 from: Thorsten Kiefer subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: Phil Jones Phil, a couple of weeks ago, Larry has rather abruptly moved to another job. His new email is larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com Naresh Kumar (NKumar@epri.com) is taking care of EPRI-PAGES/CLIVAR issues. He confirms that he is equally enthusiastic to maintain this collaboration. I have forwarded today's manuscript to both, Larry and Naresh already. Cheers Thorsten On 20 Feb 2008, at 18:27, Phil Jones wrote: > > Thorsten, > It has got to 4 people so far - the Swiss (Heinz, Jurg), Kim Cobb > and Michael Schulz - but he is on an ocean cruise. > This version is better than that a few weeks ago. > > It bounced from Larry. Also it has been sent onto Hugues Gooses. > I also now know how to spell his name - thanks to Heinz/Jurg. > > We won't stop working on it, but we can do a few other things > for a day or so! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 17:14 20/02/2008, you wrote: >> Thank you, Phil, >> good to see this big step taken! >> Thorsten >> >> >> On 20 Feb 2008, at 17:01, Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change >>> in the past couple of >>> months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The >>> Holocene. Subject >>> to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by >>> the boreal autumn. >>> So we need you to look through your section, and overall. We'd >>> like to submit this in >>> early March. >>> We know some small bits are missing (SH trees for example - >>> Ricardo is likely in >>> the field). We also need to clean up the references. If you have >>> some of those highlighted >>> in yellow - send them. >>> Can you all check the conclusions and add/modify but keep them >>> fairly >>> concise and in the bullet form? Also add in acknowledgements >>> you'd like >>> to have at the end. I presume you all want to remain involved in >>> this. Also >>> check affiliations. >>> >>> When you get this can you all acknowledge the email, so I can be >>> sure >>> my list is OK and that all have received it. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> PS can someone send this on to Huges Goose. He doesn't seem to be >>> on this >>> list. >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ 3292. 2008-02-21 08:30:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:30:25 -0500 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, I did read the paper once over to get a sense of the flow as well as comment on specifics, and I think it fits together remarkably well given that it is splice of different authors w/ different styles/emphases. I agree that part 4 could perhaps be fleshed out a bit more, for example greenhouse gases are given short thrift and anthropogenic tropospheric aerosols, near as I can tell, aren't even discussed. Gavin/Caspar would perhaps we best suited to revise this section. But perhaps you'll get some constructive feedback/suggestions in each of these areas from the current authors. w/ 27 co-authors there is a huge sense of division of responsibility, so you may need to prod folks a few times before getting them to respond. let me know if I can be of any help w/ particular individuals! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > You're the first to respond with comments. Only 12 have acknowledged > receipt of the email so far of the 27 authors. A couple seem to be on > travel > from emails I've had. > Section 3 is based on what Gene originally sent, but with inputs from > Francis and Caspar - not much from Caspar though. Tim here then put > all this together. It's been too busy here lately, that I've not had > a chance to > fully read this with time to think. The trees part was added > yesterday morning! > If you get time to look at the overall paper and consider whether any > issues are missing, or less important ones overmentioned. Also > look at the conclusions (also add to those there) and say which major > ones of these should follow > through to the abstract. Section 4 probably needs more work. I got some > good text from Gavin, small bits from Caspar and then the Figure text > Tim > added. It is probably a bit disjointed. The style of the different > parts of > section 2 on the paleo disciplines is also a little different. > > We had to send this out to keep Thorsten and EPRI off our backs. > > The arranged reviewing Keith has done will help - if all goes to plan > with fasttracking we could have this in August. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 03:57 21/02/2008, you wrote: >> Hi Phil, >> >> The paper has shaped up very nicely--thanks for all of the work >> you've done on this. The appendix is especially nice--it's great to >> see this business finally put to rest, and will be very nice to >> finally be able to cite this when the paper is in press. >> >> I've attached a modified version, for your use. i didn't want to >> circulate to the full group, because frankly I wasn't quite sure >> whose feet I'm stepping on w/ some of my suggested edits/deletions. >> In a few places, I've objected (somewhat strenuously!) to some added >> bits that I felt were problematic/wrong and/or redundant anyways w/ >> better treatment and discussion of related issues elsewhere in the >> paper. I've also made a number of other comments regarding issues >> that are minor but nonetheless in my view important to get right, >> since this paper probably will be widely cited. Let me know if any >> of my suggestions/changes require further discussion. >> >> All of my changes are highlighted in cyan w/ comments in brackets and >> bold font. I fixed the ambiguity in Mann et al '05/'05b. There is >> just one Mann et al (05) that is relevant in this paper, so I've >> eliminated the 'b's, and I've also updated any outdated references. >> I also added a short statement to the acknowledgements (also >> highlighted in cyan). >> >> talk to you later, >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change >>> in the past couple of >>> months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The >>> Holocene. Subject >>> to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by the >>> boreal autumn. >>> So we need you to look through your section, and overall. We'd like >>> to submit this in >>> early March. >>> We know some small bits are missing (SH trees for example - >>> Ricardo is likely in >>> the field). We also need to clean up the references. If you have >>> some of those highlighted >>> in yellow - send them. >>> Can you all check the conclusions and add/modify but keep them >>> fairly >>> concise and in the bullet form? Also add in acknowledgements you'd >>> like >>> to have at the end. I presume you all want to remain involved in >>> this. Also >>> check affiliations. >>> >>> When you get this can you all acknowledge the email, so I can be >>> sure >>> my list is OK and that all have received it. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> PS can someone send this on to Huges Goose. He doesn't seem to be >>> on this >>> list. >>> >>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 4677. 2008-02-21 16:46:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:46:29 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2008JD009964 (Editor - Jose Fuentes): Review Instructions for to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2295 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Osborn: Thank you for agreeing to review manuscript number 2008JD009964 entitled "Reply to: "Comment on 'Robustness of proxy-based climate field reconstruction methods', by Mann et al."" by Scott Rutherford, Michael Mann, Eugene Wahl, and Caspar Ammann for possible publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. Our goal is to complete the initial review process in about four weeks, and the assigned due date for this project is March 22, 2008. We would appreciate your completing and returning the review on or before this date. To view the manuscript, review form, and instructions please click on the link below. (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.) It would be most helpful if: (1) the review is prepared in anonymous format suitable for transmission to the author; (2) the review comments on the paper's originality, significance, and/or usefulness to the JGR readership; and (3) the review includes a specific recommendation (e.g., publish as is, publish after revision, or reject). If you prepare your detailed comments outside the GEMS system and copy-and-paste them into the review form, please scroll through these comments before submitting the review to ensure that all characters are rendered correctly and that no incorrect font substitution has occurred. Reviewers are kindly requested to consider the originality of the scientific work and to evaluate the scope of the manuscript with respect to the broad readership of the Journal. In particular they should warn the Editor if they feel that the work may be too specialized, too regional in scope, or that its wording makes it unnecessarily difficult or unappealing for readers from outside the field. Suggestions that make the manuscript shorter without altering its content are particularly welcome. Please e-mail, call, or fax us if you have any questions. Thank you again for your help and support of our journal. Sincerely, Jose Fuentes Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 1293. 2008-02-22 09:49:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:49:03 -0500 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper] to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, that's fine w/ me. We could continue to wordsmith and refine, but what would be the point if we're going to have to make significant revisions anyway after review. Only reason to consult me before submitting again would be if there were disagreement w/ the changes suggested. as for reviews on boreholes and on varves, I'm drawing a blank. Jones and Mann '04 is the best I can think of!! mike Phil Jones wrote: Gavin, Mike, Thanks for the comments. The coral and ice core groups are getting together to amend their sections. I can get rid of most of that paragraph in the Appendix Gavin. Just alerting the reader that the 1990 curve has been used is enough. Would you two be happy with us modifying it here and submitting when ready? We'll send round again then whilst the journal reviews it. I know it's a bit disjointed in places - the worst is the low-freq marine section. Peck has too much on to do a complementary piece for lakes. I don't reckon much to stalagmites - not stalactites for that matter! Do you know of a good recent review on boreholes and/or varves? Cheers Phil At 22:37 21/02/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Gavin, FYI, attached are comments I forwarded Phil yesterday, in some cases overlapping w/ comments of yours, but also dealing with some other issues. I chose not to send these to the entire list, because if everyone were to do this it would lead to an uncontrollable frenzy and perhaps some disputes. I think its best to put this all in Phil's capable hands, and let him sort things out. mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:57:58 -0500 From: Michael Mann [1] Reply-To: [2]mann@psu.edu Organization: Penn State University To: Phil Jones [3] References: [4]<20080220161117.1AFE9308294@mail.meteo.psu.edu> Hi Phil, The paper has shaped up very nicely--thanks for all of the work you've done on this. The appendix is especially nice--it's great to see this business finally put to rest, and will be very nice to finally be able to cite this when the paper is in press. I've attached a modified version, for your use. i didn't want to circulate to the full group, because frankly I wasn't quite sure whose feet I'm stepping on w/ some of my suggested edits/deletions. In a few places, I've objected (somewhat strenuously!) to some added bits that I felt were problematic/wrong and/or redundant anyways w/ better treatment and discussion of related issues elsewhere in the paper. I've also made a number of other comments regarding issues that are minor but nonetheless in my view important to get right, since this paper probably will be widely cited. Let me know if any of my suggestions/changes require further discussion. All of my changes are highlighted in cyan w/ comments in brackets and bold font. I fixed the ambiguity in Mann et al '05/'05b. There is just one Mann et al (05) that is relevant in this paper, so I've eliminated the 'b's, and I've also updated any outdated references. I also added a short statement to the acknowledgements (also highlighted in cyan). talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change in > the past couple of > months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The > Holocene. Subject > to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by the > boreal autumn. > So we need you to look through your section, and overall. We'd like > to submit this in > early March. > We know some small bits are missing (SH trees for example - > Ricardo is likely in > the field). We also need to clean up the references. If you have some > of those highlighted > in yellow - send them. > Can you all check the conclusions and add/modify but keep them fairly > concise and in the bullet form? Also add in acknowledgements you'd like > to have at the end. I presume you all want to remain involved in > this. Also > check affiliations. > > When you get this can you all acknowledge the email, so I can be sure > my list is OK and that all have received it. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS can someone send this on to Huges Goose. He doesn't seem to be on > this > list. > > > Prof. Phil 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 -- 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 1090. 2008-02-22 17:33:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:33:28 +0800 from: subject: Re: Re: Re: Fwd: 2008JD009916 (Editor - Yinon Rudich): to: "Phil Jones" Phil, It is very difficult to estimate the urbanization error. I am apt to assess the effect on the temperature warming trend in the time series based on my early research and our nearly conclusions. So the key part is built the China temperature change series with our nearly homogenized monthly mean maximum and minimum temperature series. The first step will be to follow your finished jobs(but limited in only Mainland China region). I think you will have mature methods and softwares to do that. I have a student to do this, but it seems she cannot finsh it in near future. So I hope we can use them under your instruction. Then, some other items like the urbanization and the thermometer change will be discussed. I guess it may be a little different with existing results got by inhomogenous dataset. Best Regards Qingxiang ======= 2008-02-21 17:17:57 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= > Qingxiang, > No reply yet from Brohan/Kennedy who I emailed yesterday. > You will only be able to incorporate some of the terms used in > Brohan et al. The marine ones can be ignored. > To include sampling errors you will need an estimate of the > term r-bar (r with the overbar). This is quite easy to estimate from > the inter-station correlations - as in the 1997 and 2001 papers. > Note that the errors/biases/sampling need to be estimated on > two timescales. > What do you plan to use for the urbanization error? > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 02:23 21/02/2008, you wrote: >>Phil, >> >>Thank you very much. >> >>It appears from the momment, we can only take >>the sampling errors and some part of bias error >>(Urbanization effects and thermometer change(in >>China, from manual to automatic observation from >>about 2002-2003)) in Brohan's paper into >>consideration in our staudy. So we can also use >>your approaches published in >>1990(urbanization),1997,2001(sampling errors) for references. >> >>BTW, I can use both my work address and "limmy"now. >> >>Cheers >> >>Qingxiang >> >> >>======= 2008-02-20 18:39:32 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= >> >> > Qingxiang, >> > I'll read over in the next week or so. I have emailed >> > to Philip Brohan and John Kennedy at the Hadley Centre. Philip >> > is in a different section, so may not want to get involved. >> > John might though. I'll let you know how they respond. >> > >> > By the way, are you getting emails from me at your work address >> > now, or do you still have to use 'limmy'? >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> >At 10:00 20/02/2008, you wrote: >> >>Dear Phil, >> >> >> >>I have finished my paper for the homogenized >> >>dataset 1951~2004 (CHHT1.0)(attached), and will >> >>submit it to BAMS, can you read it and give me some comments or advices? >> >> >> >>Based on the dataset and the nearly finished >> >>CHHT 1900~2006, I am going to estimate the >> >>uncertainty in current National temperature >> >>change series for this period. We read Dr. >> >>Brohan's paper(JGR,2006) and want to follow some >> >>parts of your work in China scarle.But We found >> >>some difficulties in some of the taches. I >> >>wonder if we can invite you (and Dr. Brohan) to >> >>join the study? And can you help us to get >> >>approach to the whole procedures you used in the >> >>paper? (We can finish the analysis here with >> >>your help, or we can fund some people to do part >> >>of the job in UK with your help.) >> >> >> >>I understand that you are very busy. But would >> >>you please tell me your opinions? >> >> >> >>Thank you in advance. >> >> >> >>Best Regards >> >> >> >>Qingxiang >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>======= 2008-02-06 16:28:48 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Dear David and Qingxiang, >> >> > I submitted the paper yesterday. >> >> > Here's the text of the submission, in the original format and also >> >> > double-spaced with line numbers. >> >> > >> >> > Cheers >> >> > Phil >> >> > >> >> >>X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) >> >> >>Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:30:05 UT >> >> >>To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> >> >>Subject: 2008JD009916 (Editor - Yinon Rudich): Editor Assigned >> >> >>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: 987 >> >> >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary >> >> >>Content-Type: text/plain >> >> >> >> >> >>Dear Dr. Jones: >> >> >> >> >> >>On February 5, 2008, I received your manuscript entitled >> >> >>"Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an >> >> >>emphasis on China" by authors Phil Jones, >> David Lister, and Qingxiang Li. >> >> >> >> >> >>Your manuscript has been assigned the Paper #: 2008JD009916. >> >> >> >> >> >>Your paper is now being sent out for peer review. I will contact you >> >> >>as soon as this process is complete. >> >> >> >> >> >>You may check on the status of this manuscript at any time by >> >> >>selecting the "Check Manuscript Status" link under the following URL: >> >> >> >> >> >>> bin >> /main.plex?el=A1Bc6DnfR6A7BFkh4F3A9C9V927o47yJ19eQyaEDoAZ> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>(NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and >> >> >>password. If you wish to share this link with co-authors or >> >> >>colleagues, please be aware that they will have access to your >> >> >>entire account for this journal.) >> >> >> >> >> >>Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Geophysical >> >> >>Research - Atmospheres. >> >> >> >> >> >>Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >>Yinon Rudich >> >> >>Editor, JGR-Atmospheres >> >> > >> >> >Prof. Phil Jones >> >> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> >> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> >> >University of East Anglia >> >> >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> >> >NR4 7TJ >> >> >UK >> >> >----------------------------------------------- >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >> >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö >> >>Àñ£¡ >> >> >> >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-02-20 >> > >> >Prof. Phil Jones >> >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >> >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >> >University of East Anglia >> >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >> >NR4 7TJ >> >UK >> >----------------------------------------------- >> ----------------------------- >> >> >>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö >>Àñ£¡ >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-02-21 > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-02-22 294. 2008-02-25 17:21:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:21:56 +0000 from: "Eric W Wolff" subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: Dear Phil (copying my other ice core colleagues, and Gavin, because I am looking at the vanOmmened version of the Schmidt edit), Firstly, this is to acknowledge that I have seen your mail. I re-iterate that I don't feel I did much, so I am entirely happy to be left on or off the author list depending on balance between the sections. If I am on, please edit my name to E.W Wolff, and remove "Physical Sciences Division" from my affiliation. I have some moinor edits to other parts and then some stuff about the recommendations. Page 10, para 2, "tropical" rather than "topical". As someone who is not in any way associated with hockeysticks, I hope you'll accept if I suggest that the paper should avoid loaded statements that form part of longstanding discussions. This means: a) I agree entirely with Gavin and Tas that the para GS has deleted from the appendix (page 62) is inappropriate. If it is reinstated, please let me know. b) On page 13, I think the criticism of Moberg is too strong (too many negative words). In a review, it's appropriate to say what someone else (Moberg) opined and why, and its appropriate to say why they may be wrong. But the word "misguided" is a loaded word too far for me. I have done an extensive edit of the ice core recommendations (attached). I feel that as originally written they did not really address the issues we highlighted in the text. My edits may require discussion, so I let the others comment whether they agree them. Eric Eric Wolff British Antarctic Survey High Cross Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 0ET United Kingdom E-mail: ewwo@bas.ac.uk Phone: +44 1223 221491 Fax: +44 1223 221279 >>> Gavin Schmidt 21/02/08 20:00:38 >>> Phil, here are my edits and commentary (a little spread around as well as extra bits for 'my' section). I find the paper a little uneven - veering from hyper technical to fairly superficial at different points, but overall it's got almost everything. The only bit I really didn't like was a paragraph on the Wegman report's use of the IPCC 90 figure - that has to go or be radically rewritten. I have a few questions on other peoples sections where I though something was unclear (generally highlighted and in all caps). Changes are visible in track changes mode. Gavin On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:01, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change > in the past couple of > months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The > Holocene. Subject > to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by the > boreal autumn. > So we need you to look through your section, and overall. We'd like > to submit this in > early March. > We know some small bits are missing (SH trees for example - > Ricardo is likely in > the field). We also need to clean up the references. If you have > some of those highlighted > in yellow - send them. > Can you all check the conclusions and add/modify but keep them fairly > concise and in the bullet form? Also add in acknowledgements you'd like > to have at the end. I presume you all want to remain involved in this. Also > check affiliations. > > When you get this can you all acknowledge the email, so I can be sure > my list is OK and that all have received it. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS can someone send this on to Huges Goose. He doesn't seem to be on this > list. > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\millennialpaper_ewweditsofrecommendations.doc" 295. 2008-02-26 17:01:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Feb 26 17:01:29 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Early Temperature in the US (1776-, 1804-05, 1810-16) and in to: FMims@aol.com Forrest, Only picked this up. It is a pity the water vapour measurements don't extend further back in time. Early expedition records and explorer's logs are difficult to compare with modern measurements, as they are often short in duration. When making comparisons you have to remember they are essentially long runs of weather and the long-term change from the 19th century to the present is only about 1 deg C. This 1 deg C is small compared to weather variability. Attached is another paper on early US weather obs. There are a lot of issues to consider with early observations. I also tried years ago to look at early Antarctic weather obs from the explorer days. The day-to-day variability of Antarctic temperatures almost defeats anything being said, except perhaps in the Peninsula region. Cheers Phil At 15:30 26/02/2008, you wrote: Dr. Jones, I very much appreciate the time you have taken to reply to my questions. I had not seen your intriguing paper in NATURE on surface humidity trends since 1973. Would that this paper could have extended several decades back beyond 1973 so that we could see the impact, if any, of the cooling of the 60s and 70s on RH trends. I will look more into this as time permits. Of special interest is your group's use of fewer stations than GISS and other groups. I agree completely with this "quality beats quantity" approach. Based on extensive personal experience measuring the enormous variation of temperature in and around "heat islands" ranging in size from a single brick to the nearby city, I simply find it incredible to presume that temperature records corrupted by the presence of asphalt, concrete and buildings can be corrected using simple regressions if at all. As you seem to be doing, a single, properly sited rural station uncorrupted by the presence of nearby buildings and roads is far better than a host of corrupted and supposedly corrected other sites. (I am familiar with various papers and plots concluding otherwise.) Regarding early temperature observations in the US, Susan Solomon's papers on temperature measured by the Lewis and Clark Expedition and by President Thomas Jefferson show close agreement with modern measurements, a fact I noticed in 1991 while studying Jefferson's temperature record for 1810-1816 (which includes the eruption of Tambora). According to Solomon: "It is not surprising that Lewis and Clarkâs observations during a single winter two centuries ago lie within the range of twentieth-century data, in spite of global climate change." Susan Solomon and John S. Daniel (2004). Lewis and Clark: Pioneering Meteorological Observers in the American West, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 85, 1273-1288. And: "A great deal of further analysis beyond the scope of the present work would be needed to determine whether the Jefferson or Madison observations may be of scientific value in the context of the modern challenge of global warming, but it is interesting that the Madison record (which is far more complete than that of Jefferson) is not inconsistent with cooler conditions in the late 18th century, particularly in summer." Susan Solomon, John S. Daniel and Daniel L. Druckenbrod (2007), Revolutionary Minds, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison participated in a small ârevolutionâ against British weather-monitoring practices, American Scientist 95, 430-437. I am just completing the writing of a rather long book on the history of Hawaii's Mauna Loa Observatory (going back to 1794 and the Menzies expedition) and was intrigued to find that the temperature at Hilo in February 1841 (US Exploring Expedition) is in close agreement with modern measurements. Here is what I wrote, and I would be most appreciative if you will offer criticism: "Some of the meteorological and geophysical measurements made by the Ex. Ex. on Mauna Loa and at Hilo can be compared with those made today, in particular the elevations of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, the atmospheric pressure, the temperature measured by the shaded thermometers and the water temperature of Hilo Bay. "For example, from January 31 to February 28, 1841, the mean temperature measured at Observatory 1 at Hilo, was 70.93 F (21.6 C) (Wilkes, 1851, 486). The mean temperature from 1946 to 2006 about 0.8 mile (1.3 km) away at the Hilo National Weather Service station was 71.3 F (21.8 C) (WRCC, 2006), a difference of +0.4 F (0.2 C). Very close agreement is also found in the temperature of the water measured from the USS Vincennes in Hilo Bay near Coconut Island and at a modern site in the bay. The mean water temperature for February 1841 was 73.09 F (22.8 C), which is slightly warmer than the present February mean of 72 F (22.2 C), according to the National Oceanographic Data Center (2007). The difference of 1.1 F (0.6 C) should be considered provisional, for the depths at which the temperature was measured may have differed. From Chapter 3, "Fifty Years of Monitoring a Changing Atmosphere: The Story of Hawaiiâs Mauna Loa Observatory." In December 2007 I placed temperature loggers at the site of Observatory 1 and as close as I could get to the official Hilo Weather Station (at the airport), and the difference is very close to the difference in the 1841. Thus, there seems to have been a minimal change between the single February of 1841 and the mean of the past 40 years of February. Best regards, Forrest Forrest M. Mims III [1]www.forrestmims.org [2]www.sunandsky.org Geronimo Creek Observatory Phone: 830-372-0548 In a message dated 2/26/2008 3:04:04 A.M. Central Standard Time, p.jones@uea.ac.uk writes: Forrest, All cities have UHIs, but this doesn't always mean that they are warming more that their rural neighbours. It depends how long they have been where they are. London, UK has a UHI of about 1.5 deg C compared to rural neighbours, 40km north and south of the city. The one longish record in Central London doesn't warm more than the rural sites though over the last 50 years. Vienna is similar as are a number of large European cities, as they have been where they are a very long time. The fact that they have a UHI doesn't mean therefore that they will necessarily have an additional urban-related warming trend. This is only Europe though, but it does seem to apply to some large Asian cities as well. In North America, the situation is different as the cities weren't there in most cases 100 years ago. I did recently see a paper on a long daily site in Kansas (Manhattan, KS) where a group has developed a record back to 1828 from observational data. It showed a warning since 1828 of 2.25 deg C, but the warmest years are in the 1930s Dust Bowl years. The point of the paper was that long records can be developed for the USA (not quite as far back as Europe) and that they show long-term warming. I think the authors have submitted the paper to a journal. As I said earlier, it is important to know which sites we've used and there is a list on our web site. Surfacestations.org does show many poorly located sites in the US, but there are loads of sites in the US, so there is no need to use the sites which have problems and/or numerous site moves. We don't use as many US sites as NCDC or GISS, as our aim isn't to use all, but a selection over the US. We put more effort into many other regions of the world, where coverage is less and it is important to make best of the sparser record. You mention water vapour. Globally this is rising - at the surface where there are longish records. Here's a paper on this. The dataset on this is in submission to J. Climate. Also, here's another paper from 1997. This shows that if the main aim of a study was to measure the global average T from land regions, it is only necessary to use a much more limited number of sites. This is because temperature between stations is generally very well correlated. Statistically this means that lots of stations aren't independent of each other, so there are only a limited number of spatial degrees of freedom. When using fewer stations, however, you have to make sure they are correct and fully homogeneous. Best Regards Phil At 18:04 25/02/2008, you wrote: Dear Dr. Jones, Thanks very much for the PPT slides and new links. There is considerable new information (for me, at least) in "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850." I will study this and the other items you suggested before proceeding. Regarding the two PPT slides you sent, the significance of the black line in the histogram is certainly apparent. However, I was also struck by the similarity in the downward correction in the chart at left to many GISS charts of the USA. Briefly, early temperatures are adjusted downward, sometimes by up to several degrees C, while recent temperatures are not adjusted (as in the PPT you sent), even at sites with serious problems. I looked at the annual T for San Antonio, Texas, on the NWS web site. I loaded the data from 1885-2007 into Excel, did a linear regression and found that T has increased by only 0.22 F since 1885. I then looked at 1990 to 2006 and found an increase of 0.06 F. I then found a paper from the Southwest Research Institute showing a 3 degree F increase in San Antonio compared with neighboring but small New Braunfels. In short, subtracting the urban heat island effect from San Antonio leaves a significant cooling. Confidence in this is enhanced by my personal measurements on the porch of my rural office. This site does not meet NWS standards, but nothing has changed since 1990 when I began measuring the temperature. The linear regression yields a decline of 2 degrees F between February 4, 1990 to a week ago. I have also measured the total column water vapor (or precipitable water) here since Feb 4, 1990 using a simple, highly stable instrument , and there is a slight downward trend of 0.06 cm/decade (even including a spike around 1999). Please see the attached chart. (One of the papers on this instrument is F. M. Mims III, An inexpensive and stable LED Sun photometer for measuring the water vapor column over South Texas from 1990 to 2001, Geophysical Research Letters 29, 20-1 to 20-4, 2002.) Of course my site and nearby San Antonio are only points on the globe. But at least I understand them and well and have the full record of physical locations of the San Antonio weather station. Combining these facts with the many deficient sites revealed at [3]www.surfacestations.org is why I wrote to your organization. The most interesting record you sent is the surface ocean data. This seems to show an increase only about 0.1 C less than the land record, which is good agreement. I will look more into this to learn about sampling methodology. Best regards, Forrest Forrest M. Mims III [4]www.forrestmims.org [5]www.sunandsky.org Editor, The Citizen Scientist [6]www.sas.org/tcs In a message dated 2/25/2008 10:56:32 A.M. Central Standard Time, p.jones@uea.ac.uk writes: Dear Forrest, Before you go too far, I would suggest you look at the paper by Brohan et al I mentioned to you in the earlier email. You can get it from [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ in the list of references on the page. Have a look at Figure 4. I'm attaching a couple of ppt slides, I sent to a Chinese colleague a few months ago. In the first ppt Figure 4 is repeated on the right. Ignore the left plot and the red.blue lines on the right. Just look at the black line. The text of the paper explains what the red/blue lines if you want to find out. What this Figure is is a histogram of adjustments to temperature records we've applied and also those that have been applied by the Canadians at AES. So what is there is a count of adjustments of a certain value. There are few around zero and then peaks at about +0.5 to +1.5 and -0.5 to -1.5 degrees Celsius. What this means is that making adjustments for site changes tends to average out, some sites move to warmer locations, some to cooler locations. The second ppt is a similar type of plot - the frequency of adjustments (the black line). This is US work from NCDC Asheville. Again the adjustments tend to cancel. overall, when looking at the US Lower-48 station average. When I say cancel out, I mean the trend in the time series of the before and after (adjusted) stations is much the same. So, we have taken the whole issue very seriously. The people at Climate Audit don't think we have, but we've tried to summarise the results of all the adjustments we've applied to instrumental data around the world in diagrams like these. It is clear that you need each record to be homogeneous and just be affected by weather and climate (and not exposure, site changes etc). Averaged over a large region, though, if the large-scale average series was all you were interested in, it all doesn't make much difference. So this doesn't work for single stations, but it does for large averages. There is one other reason, that the NH land temperature average is essentially correct. It agrees with the complementary record from marine data taken by ships. So we've taken it very, very seriously. We spent person years on it in the 1980s and 1990s It is only when you do this, you begin to realise what needs to be adjusted and what does not. We are making and have made numerous adjustments. You have to read numerous papers to find out what they are. I have also told you where the list of sites we use is located. Cheers Phil ___________________________________________________________________________________ Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. [8]Watch the video on AOL Living. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2266. 2008-02-28 00:37:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov, christy@nsstc.uah.edu, mears@remss.com, frank.wentz@remss.com, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, shs@stanford.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, cdcamp@amath.washington.edu, lean@demeter.nrl.navy.mil, david.parker@metoffice.com, santer1@llnl.gov, peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk, manabe@splash.princeton.edu, j.m.gregory@reading.ac.uk, meehl@ucar.edu date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 00:37:37 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: cold winter in context... a story to: Andrew Revkin Andy I am in Germany and not up to speed on this. However, past experience suggests that the weather signal is dominant at any instant and ENSO related variability far overwhelms any greenhouse signal in any year. It is well established that there is a moderate to strong La Nina underway. That should be the null hypothesis. La Nina not only cools the tropical Pacific as cold anomalies built up over time and buried beneath the surface emerge, but also radically changes the atmospheric circulation across the world, especially in the winter hemisphere. This changes the jet stream, storm tracks, cloud, precipitation and temperatures. These are general statements, not ones specific to this event, and no doubt detailed analysis of this event is available from CPC NOAA. In short, this says nothing about long-term global warming. In fact such things should be expected. Weather and climate variability continues. Kevin Andrew Revkin wrote: As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the 'Average Joe' out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big 'skeptics conference' coming next week), I think it's important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally. I've already queried a heap of Arctic hands on sea-ice fluctuations with intrsting responses (as I wrote 10/2/07, it's still mainly first-year thin ice, and -- by volume of sea ice -- there ain't much). Also need to explore questions related to solar trends. First request (for those of you from the four groups tracking temps) is for you to to look at the data below. Anthony Watts has (potentially usefully, if the data are accurate) compiled the four main ongoing efforts to track things. Can you tell me if the datasets he's used are correct for your groups?? here's text file [1]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/4metrics_temp_anomalies.txt here's his graph [2]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979- 2008.png We'd like to explore this graphically as well, perhaps looking at winter temps in isolation, or just doing something akin to what's been done above. And then there are the substance questions. I'd love it if you'd weigh in on any or all, either in an email or call. 1) How unusual is the current downturn? In particular, in relation to ENSO and other cycles that might cut the other way etc? Any 'easy' explanations, or is it good old-fashioned variability? 2) Anything pop out when you look at the hemispheres as opposed to global? 3) Do you see ANY evidence of solar activity playing a role, either background or foreground? 4) Presumably global HEATING is continuing apace, even as global TEMP fluctuates. Is that right, and/or are there ocean data showing ongoing heating of seas etc? 5) The folks using the cold snap to attack greenhouse theory include some of the same people who blamed 'hot heads' for using hot years to support their view of what's coming. Does that seem the case to you ? 6) Takehome message? As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. Feel free to respond to me alone or to the group to inspire some multi-logue. -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [3]www.nytimes.com/revkin -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [4]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, NCAR [5]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 1998. 2008-02-28 12:50:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Feb 28 12:50:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: cold winter in context... a story to: Andrew Revkin Andy, It does seem to be jumping on a bit of cold weather. We do a press release every year - even this is slightly too often. I've never done one about an individual month. Occasionally journalists call about warm periods, but I give them the message I've given you. The skeptics also leap on any paper that supports their views and ignore most others - or try to pour cold water on them. They mostly look at observation papers and ignore modelling ones, as they believe by default models are wrong! Cheers Phil At 12:28 28/02/2008, you wrote: great. thanks very much, phil. what's amusing, in a way, is how the 'skeptics' jump on a cold patch as evidence of global cooling but attack enviros for highlighting warming trend. Andy, HadCRUT3 numbers on the Watts website are OK. As has been said the Jan08 value is just one month. The NH winter and last autumn have been cool, but this was to be expected given the ongoing La Nina event. The ENSO phase often changes around April/May so keep a watch on the equatorial Pacific over the next few months. We could go into an El Nino, stay in La Nina or go neutral. Based on the La Nina state we are in (and were in at the start of the year) the Met Office and UEA issued a forecast for 2008 (for global T). [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html Forecast was for a cooler year in 2008 - coolest since 2000. As has been said natural variability dominates on monthly to up to 2-3 year timescales. Some of this natural variability relates to ENSO, but there is also NAM (NAO) and SAM as well - the latter on slightly shorter timescales than ENSO. Large El Nino's tend to warm annual global T by about +0.1-0.15 deg C (as in 98) while La Nina's cool by similar amounts. Global T also tends to lag the ENSO phase by about 6 months. These fluctuations on interannual timescales are almost an order of magnitude larger than the +0.02 deg C per year expected from anthropogenic influences. Natural variability has always been with us and will continue to be so in the future. Anthropogenic influences more on decadal and longer timescales. If you look at the map for Jan08 you'll see that Northern Europe has been well above normal, but not near record levels. In the UK snowdrops and crocuses have been out for weeks, daffodils out now and blossom on many trees also out several weeks early. We've been lucky this winter, but it is down to a positive NAO. A positive NAO also tends to make the Eastern Mediterranean and the western Middle East experience a cool winter. The typical NAO influence on eastern North America is less evident, but this is probably due to the stronger La Nina influence. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 20:23 27/02/2008, Andrew Revkin wrote: As you all are aware, a very vocal and plugged-in crew has been making much of the recent downturn in temps. Because the 'Average Joe' out there is only hearing radio soundbites about the sun turning off, or cable-news coverage or some stray TV image of snow in baghdad (and particularly with a big 'skeptics conference' coming next week), I think it's important to do a story putting a cold stretch in context against the evidence for the long-term warming trajectory from greenhouse forcing. Would need input from you by end of Thursday ideally. I've already queried a heap of Arctic hands on sea-ice fluctuations with intrsting responses (as I wrote 10/2/07, it's still mainly first-year thin ice, and -- by volume of sea ice -- there ain't much). Also need to explore questions related to solar trends. First request (for those of you from the four groups tracking temps) is for you to to look at the data below. Anthony Watts has (potentially usefully, if the data are accurate) compiled the four main ongoing efforts to track things. Can you tell me if the datasets he's used are correct for your groups?? here's text file [2]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/4metrics_temp_anomalies.txt here's his graph [3]http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1 979-2008.png We'd like to explore this graphically as well, perhaps looking at winter temps in isolation, or just doing something akin to what's been done above. And then there are the substance questions. I'd love it if you'd weigh in on any or all, either in an email or call. 1) How unusual is the current downturn? In particular, in relation to ENSO and other cycles that might cut the other way etc? Any 'easy' explanations, or is it good old-fashioned variability? 2) Anything pop out when you look at the hemispheres as opposed to global? 3) Do you see ANY evidence of solar activity playing a role, either background or foreground? 4) Presumably global HEATING is continuing apace, even as global TEMP fluctuates. Is that right, and/or are there ocean data showing ongoing heating of seas etc? 5) The folks using the cold snap to attack greenhouse theory include some of the same people who blamed 'hot heads' for using hot years to support their view of what's coming. Does that seem the case to you ? 6) Takehome message? As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. Feel free to respond to me alone or to the group to inspire some multi-logue. -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [4]www.nytimes.com/revkin Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [5]www.nytimes.com/revkin Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2608. 2008-02-29 15:03:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Lanzante , "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:03:43 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: IJOC paper to: Melissa Free Dear Melissa, Thanks for your comments on the IJoC paper. Here are a few quick responses. Melissa Free wrote: > Hi Ben, > I've looked through the draft and have some comments: > 1. I don't feel completely comfortable with the use of SSTs rather than > combined land-sea surface temperatures for the lapse-rate analysis. Are > we sure we have thought through the implications of this approach? If > you show that the relationship between SSTs and tropical mean > tropospheric temperatures is consistent between models and observations, > that seems to imply that they are not so consistent for land > surface-troposphere lapse rates. Could this be used to support the > Pielke-Christy theory that (land) surface temperature trends are > overestimated in the existing observational datasets? I do feel comfortable with use of SSTs (rather than combined land+ocean temperatures) to estimate changes in tropical lapse rates. As Isaac Held pointed out, the temperature of the free troposphere in the deep tropics follows a moist adiabat which is largely set by the warmest SSTs in areas experiencing convection. The temperature of the free troposphere in the deep tropics is not set by temperatures over land. So if you want to see whether observations and models show lapse-rate changes that are in accord with a moist adiabatic lapse rate theory, it makes sense to look at SSTs rather than combined land+ocean surface temperatures. Admittedly, the focus of this paper is NOT on amplification behavior. Still, it does make sense to look at tropical lower tropospheric lapse rates in terms of their primary physical driver: SSTs. As I tried to point out in the text of the IJoC paper, models and RSS-based estimates of lapser-rate changes are consistent, even if lapse-rate changes are inferred from combined land+ocean surface temperatures. The same same does not hold for lapse rate changes estimated from HadCRUT3v and UAH data. I must admit that I don't fully understand the latter result. If you look at Table 1, you'll see that the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard deviation of T{SST} is 0.243 degrees C, while the multi-model ensemble-mean temporal standard deviation of T{L+O} is higher (0.274 degrees C). This makes good physical sense, since noise is typically higher over land than over ocean. Yet in the HadCRUT3v data, the temporal standard deviation of T{L+O} (0.197 degrees C) is very similar to that of T{SST} for the HadISST1 and HadISST2 data (HadISST2 is the SST component of HadCRUT3v). The fact that HadCRUT3v appears to have very similar variability over land and ocean seems counter-intuitive to me. Could it indicate a potential problem in the tropical land 2m temperatures in HadCRUT3v? I don't know. I'll let Phil address that one. The point is that we've done - at least in my estimation - a thorough job of looking at the sensitivity of our significance test results to current observational uncertainties in surface temperature changes. > 2. The conclusion seems like too much of a dissertation on past history > of the controversy. As I pointed out in my email of Feb. 26th, I had a specific concern about the "Summary and Conclusions" section. I think that many readers of the paper will skip all the statistical stuff, and just read the Abstract and the "Summary and Conclusions". I did want the latter section to be relatively self-contained. We could have started by saying: "Here are the errors in Douglass et al., and here is what we found". But on balance, I thought that it would be more helpful to provide some scientific context. As I mentioned this morning, the Douglass et al. paper has received attention in high places. Not everyone who reads our response will be apprised of the history and context. > 3. Regarding the time scale invariance of model amplification and the > effects of volcanic eruptions on the trend comparisons, I am attaching a > draft of my paper with John Lanzante comparing volcanic signals in sonde > datasets v. models. I'm not sure if the statements on page 45 of the > IJOC paper are consistent with my findings. (I thought about sending you > this paper before, but it seemed like you were probably too busy with > the IJOC paper to look at it.) I'll look at your paper this weekend. I'm not quire sure which statements on page 45 you are referring to. > 4. I suspect the statement in the last sentence of the conclusion won't > represent the view of all authors-although it's certainly Dian's view. I > don't think it is my view quite yet. Others have also queried this final paragraph. At present, it looks like it might be tough to accommodate the divergent views on this subject. But I'll certainly try my best! > I'm investigating an expedited internal review process and will let you > know how it looks. Thanks for looking into the expedited review! > -Melissa With best regards, Ben (P.S.: I hope you don't mind that I've copied my reply to Phil. I'm hoping he can chime in on the issue of land surface temperature variability in the HadCRUT3v data.) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2511. 2008-02-29 15:32:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Feb 29 15:32:31 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: IPCC section in ENV report to: "Rachel Warren" Rachel, I was the CLA (with Kevin Trenberth) on Ch 3 of the WG1 report. The title of this was 'Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change'. This was the largest chapter in WG1 at 101pp. With Ch 6 (Paleo, which Keith Briffa was involved in) and Ch 9 (Understanding and Attribution, Nathan Gillett), the three chapters were the most important of WG1. The main piece of work that went into the Chapter was the global temperature record (which the ENV report discussed last year). Ch 3 also referred to earlier CRU work on precipitation data, extremes of climate and circulation measures. IPCC seems to have always used the HadCRUT3 temperature record and many people refer to it as the IPCC record. This is incorrect, As HadCRUT3 doesn't differ much from the NCDC record in Asheville, NC we produced some plots with HadCRUT3 and some with NCDC (National Climatic Data Center). We produced the time series and they produce the spatial maps of trends. I've been a CA on the 3 previous reports on the same basic chapter. There was much CRU work referred to in Chs 6 and 9 as well, and CRU data are referred to in Ch 11 as well. Here's a little snippit that might be useful to add. WG1 has 11 chapters. I have at least one of my papers (as first author) referred to be each chapter except Ch 5. Mostly each chapter refers to between 1-6 papers, although it is more for Ch 3 that I helped write. I have just looked through Ch 5 and a paper of mine is there, but I'm not first author! I am enjoying the experience more and more as I begin to slowly forget the time and effort it all took. I would do it again, more likely as an RE, as then you get some of the experience without all the effort. Seeing the volume come out and going to the final plenary in Paris was good. The Nobel Peace Prize was , however, the icing on the cake for all the effort. I know many skeptics have referred to this award as a political gesture - but this has always been the case. I still have the lists of who was involved that I prepared for Jacquie, so I could check through a Table if you're producing one. Cheers Phil At 21:26 28/02/2008, you wrote: Dear fellow IPCC stars, A reminder that I did ask for your contributions for the ENV report by the end of February ... and it is now IS the end of February! (Fortunately, as it is a leap year, you have one extra day to meet my deadline!) Please send me you contributions asap. Be assured that when we write about the Nobel we will make clear it was for all reports and if there is room I want to at least list the names of anyone not in the 2007 report who is still in ENV. And of course we will mention Bob Watson! But I'm not going to contact those people and ask them for contributions - it's simply too large a task to cover all the several IPCC reports and special IPCC reports. If this raises particular problems then someone else will need to volunteer to contact all those other people as I do not have time. If you feel that a particular person deserves mention for past reports, please include 1 sentence on what they did in what you send me. It isn't going to be possible to mention everyone, so please only do this if they made a really major contribution. Best wishes Rachel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rachel Warren Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:03 PM Subject: IPCC section in ENV report To: Phil Jones , Neil Adger , Irene Lorenzoni , Keith Briffa , Sarah Raper , Tim Osborn , Andrew Watkinson , C.Lequere@uea.ac.uk, Johanna Wolf , Andrew Manning , Nick Brooks , M.Agnew@uea.ac.uk, jacqueline@dechazal.net, andlug@hotmail.com, k.vincent@uea.ac.uk Dear All ENV would like a 3 page section in its annual (2007) report about the contribution of ENV to IPCC AR4. I have been asked to coordinate this section with you all. If anyone has up to date email addresses for Nick Brooks, and David Viner, please forward this message on to them. I understand that you are/were all in ENV in 2007 and that all contributed to the IPCC AR4. If anyone included on this list is not in ENV, or was not in ENV in 2007, please let me know. (In particular I cannot find Andrew Dlugolecki or Katherine Vincent on the ENV website). For the section I need contributions from each of you. In particular I need: (a) a PARAGRAPH from each of your explaining your contribution to IPCC AR4. (b) comments on the overall experience (I may not be able to include all of these) (c) We also need a section on pieces of ENV research that were used in the IPCC AR4 contributions. If you have any of these, please let me know. Currently, ENV made a request for an account from Phil Jones on how the annual surface temperature record is compiled and how it is used in IPCC. But if anyone else would like to write something for this section please let me know, it would be good be able to choose the best pieces. Please note that if I do not hear from anyone about their contribution, I won't be able to make sure it appears in the report, so this is your opportunity to be featured! (Of course if on the other hand I am overwhelmed with text then obviously not all can be included). Please send me your contributions by the end of February at the latest. FYI the 3 pages are to contain: 1. Diagram relating the different parts of the report (subject areas) to ENV contributors. 2. Summary of what each person did. 3. A longer piece relating someone's personal experience of the whole process (up to and including the final negotiation, if possible), and including a timeline; and/or compiled comments from several persons on the experience. 4. One or two items about ENV contributors' research that informs/contributes to their work on IPCC. 5. The Nobel ceremony (Bob Watson attended and has pictures). Best wishes Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@uea.ac.uk -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2564. 2008-03-03 17:28:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 17:28:24 -0000 from: "Penstone-Smith Claire Mrs \(MAC\)" subject: Media Summary 3.3.08 East Anglian Daily Times 3.3.08 P22 New laws needed to save Amazon species Protected forest strips buffering rivers and sreams of the Amazon rainforest should be significantly wider than currently according to new research by scientists at the UEA. Dr Carlos Peres (ENV) is quoted. East Anglian Daily Times 3.3.08 P23 New UEA study will analyse flood risk. Rainfall in the UK became more intense during the past 100 years according to new research at the UEA. East Anglian Daily Times 3.3.08 P23 Nitrous Oxide Group Farmers, food suppliers, policy makers, business leaders and environmentalists are joining forces to confront the threat of the `forgotten greenhouse gas' nitrous oxide by taking part in a new forum co-ordinated by Prof David Richardson (SCI) of the UEA who is quoted. Evening News 3.3.08 P11 City Hall is preparing for its darkest hour Norwich has become the first UK city to sign up to a worldwide initiative to switch off lights to raise awareness about global warming on March 29 as part of Earth Hour 2008. Norwich City Council have agreed to work with CRed at the UEA to try and involve other organisations. Marcus Armes is quoted. [1]http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBra nd=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Mar%202008%2010%3A25%3A30%3A927 Evening News 3.3.08 P14 Hospital averts a maternity crisis Sufficient midwives have been recruited to work at the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital because many due to retire. Eleven graduate midwives have been recruited from the UEA. [2]http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBra nd=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Mar%202008%2010%3A08%3A41%3A033 EDP 3.3.08 P20 Loft ideals for an insulation project Reepham is one of the highest polluting towns in the UK in term of emission of carbon dioxide according to a survey carried out by CRed at the UEA and the Energy Saving Trust. The Observer 2.3.08 P11 Business & Media - Prince of pension buyouts Profile of Mark's Wood, founder and chief executive of Paternoster, studied at the UEA. The Observer 2.3.08 P7 Review - Ask the experts Prof Rebecca Stott (LIT) is one of three authors answering questions about books. Sunday Telegrah 2.3.08 P26 A day to savour the rewards of motherhood Article about Mother's Day which includes mention of the recent study from the UEA that indicates a third of professional women lose out on career advancement once they have children. Mail on Sunday 2.3.08 P61/63 What I've learn from being in the system is that there's a seed of mental illness in everyone Interview with author Clare Allan, who studied creative writing at the UEA. The Independent 1.3.08 P2 Proof that we are not taking climate change seriously Article that mentions a study by the Tyndall Centre on greenhouse gas targets. EDP 1.3.08 P17 UEA graduate to Radio 1 - in a day Interview with Greg James, who graduated from the UEA last year, and is now working at for Radio 1. [3]http://new.edp24.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Features&itemid=NOED01 %20Mar%202008%2011:23:51:217&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=search EDP 1.3.08 P40 Now it's all systems go for `carbon calculator' Farm accounts will change next week when important calculations will be based around greenhouse gas emission and carbon sequestration via a new web-based calculator. The article quotes Mark Little of the Norwich office of Savills agribusiness who it mentions instigated discussions with the UEA and took the lead in the launch of CRed. EDP 1.3.08 EDP Saturday, P10 Baxter to the future Interview with singer-songwriter Tom Baxter who recollects seeing the Stray Cats at the UEA. [4]http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/WhatsOn/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=WhatsOn&tBran d=EDPOnline&tCategory=WhatsOn&itemid=NOED01%20Mar%202008%2017%3A50%3A02%3A150 EDP 1.3.08 P20 EDP Sunday, Social Diary Photographs of the electro-pop band Hot Chip's gig at the UEA. The Guardian 1.3.08 P16 Review - Me, myself and I Review of Submarine by Joe Dunthorne who studied creative writing at the UEA. Daily Mail 1.3.08 P25 Review - How Hitler invaded Wales Review of Owen Sheers' latest novel. He studied at the UEA. BBC Look East 29.2.08 Dr Keith Tovey (ENV) interviewed about the effect of the Bacton gas terminal fire on gas prices. Headlines 03.03.08 Newspaper headlines (and online links where possible) 01.03.08 First class news (The Guardian Graduate 01.03.08 p. 22) [5]http://www.guardian.co.uk/graduate/story/0,,2261162,00.html 02.03.08 The lazy student's guide (The Sunday Express 02.03.08 p. 20) Plans for 20 new university towns (The Observer 02.03.08 p. 10) [6]http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2261433,00.html You can tell a great university by the companies it keeps (The Observer 02.03.08 p. 35) [7]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/02/highereducation 03.03.08 A market higher education has to create, then supply (The FT Letters 03.03.08 p. 10) [8]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4e9b9910-e8c3-11dc-913a-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html? Plans for more towns to have a university (The Daily Telegraph 03.03.08 p. 12) [9]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/03/nschool403.xml University students offered 'earn as you learn' scheme (The Independent 03.03.08 p. 4) [10]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/schools-and-universities-lin k-up-to-give-earn-as-you-learn-option-to-students-790467.html Oxford's finest are offered financial lure to work in tough urban schools (The Times 03.03.08 p. 28) 'University challenge' for 20 new campuses (The Times 03.03.08 p. 27) [11]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article3471191.ece Additional online stories Blowing the whistle on the REF! [12]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7271431.stm Plans for 20 new university towns [13]http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2261433,00.html Vote may end Cambridge's self-rule [14]http://education.guardian.co.uk/administration/story/0,,2261095,00.html Royal Society turns to venture capitalism [15]http://www.researchresearch.com/getPage.cfm?pagename=ResearchDay&lang=EN&type=UK&Public ation=Research%20Day%20UK&Issue=2937 Denham sets out vision for HE global dominance [16]http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2261201,00.html UCU warned to 'think again' over pay bargaining [17]http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2261156,00.html Sector Releases A new 'university challenge' (DIUS 03.03.08) [18]http://www.dius.gov.uk/index.html Claire Penstone-Smith Communications Assistant Marketing and Communications Division Tel: 01603 593496 Web: www.uea.ac.uk/comm Please note my office hours are Monday - Wednesday. For queries on other days please contact my colleague Sue Garrod on s.garrod@uea.ac.uk 5. 2008-03-04 09:57:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 09:57:09 -0500 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Not again! to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, will let you know what we decide to do w/ this. I think it might just get more traction than the previous similar efforts, and if so will need a response. refuting the specifics is important, but many of these might be lost on journalists and politico types, so we'll need to look at the big picture too in any post we do. will keep you in the loop. looking forward to seeing you in Morea. I get in early morning on the 31st but will be extremely jet lagged! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > The foreword and introduction is a very biased read. > They again make the statement that the text of the report > was changed to follow the SPM. Very little was changed, > but what is the point of the plenary passing the SPM otherwise > if the text can't be changed. > > If you want to do anything you could see what RC readers > make of Fig 20 and its caption! > > There is loads of buoy data now and ship-based SST. > The buoys are warmer - slightly. > > Who hasn't even bothered to look at some data ! > > The mixed layer has much the same SST - hence the name! > > If only RSS could definitively show that the UAH is wrong. > > See you Moorea. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:57 04/03/2008, Michael Mann wrote: >> thanks Phil--yes, we've seen this. having some discussion about how >> and if to deal w/ it at all. to some extent, these guys are pissing >> into the wind at this point. >> >> looking forward to the revised draft, no rush. I'll be travelling >> next two weeks (doing some work w/ Hugues Goosse in Belgium), and >> will have somewhat intermittent/limited internet. >> >> talk to you later, >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Mike, >>> Assume you've seen this. Probably no point even bothering to >>> discuss this on RC. Same old recycled rubbish.. >>> >>> Nice to see the AD 536 paper highlighted - seems that most >>> seem to refer to Lovelock, though... There also seemed a couple of >>> rants from someone who thought they were commenting on Climate Audit! >>> >>> Thanks for all the comments on Wengen. You'll be getting the >>> last but one version >>> later this week hopefully, but early next week if we can't make it. >>> Nearly 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 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 84. 2008-03-04 14:47:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 4 14:47:10 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing to: pcoxon@tcd.ie Dear Pete I will review this - hopefully within your deadline. Please forward the pdf best wishes KeithAt 10:25 04/03/2008, you wrote: Dear Professor Briffa Manuscript # JQS-08-0020 entitled "Summer temperature variations in Lapland during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age relative to natural instability of thermohaline circulation" has been submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science. As an acknowledged expert in this field I am inviting you to review this manuscript. The abstract appears at the end of this letter, along with the names of the authors. Please let me know within 5 days if you will be able to review this paper and if you can I will attach a PDF file of the manuscript. I would ask that you complete your review within 3 weeks and no longer than 4 weeks from receipt. If you are unable to review this paper, would you take a moment to please recommend one or two other possible referees with expertise in this area. Sincerely, Prof. Pete Coxon Journal of Quaternary Science MANUSCRIPT DETAILS TITLE: Summer temperature variations in Lapland during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age relative to natural instability of thermohaline circulation AUTHORS: Helama, Samuli; Timonen, Mauri; Holopainen, Jari; Ogurtsov, Maxim; Mielikäinen, Kari; Eronen, Matti; Lindholm, Markus; Meriläinen, Jouko ABSTRACT: New tree-ring based analysis for climate variability at regional scale is presented for high altitudes of Europe. Our absolutely dated temperature reconstruction seeks to characterize the summer temperatures since AD 750. The warmest and coolest 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). Further, we detect an approx. 50-60-year rhythm, attributable to instability of the North Atlantic deep water, in the regional climate during the MWP but not during the LIA. Intensified formation of the North Atlantic deep water further appeared coincident to the initiation and continuation of MWP, the mid-LIA transient warmth occurring during the period AD 1391-1440, and to recent warming. Our results suggest that the internal climate variability (i.e. thermohaline circulation) could have played a role behind the earlier start of the MWP in several proxy reconstructions compared to the externally forced model simulations. ========================== Sign up for e-mail alerts to Journal of Quaternary Science and receive the latest tables of contents immediately upon publication [1]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs ========================== 275. 2008-03-05 13:39:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Mar 5 13:39:00 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Douglass Paper response from santer et al to: "Glenn McGregor" I wondered just that the other day, given his earlier indication that it would be ready quickly. It turns out that there has been a complete draft for a little while, but because there are many co-authors it is taking time to get everyone's agreement/comments and also some authors, because of their affiliations, may be requiring internal institutional review before submission. I'm not sure what this means in terms of submission time... Tim At 13:17 05/03/2008, you wrote: Tim Any update on whether santer et al are submitting their response to the Douglass paper. I ask as I have not seen any evidence of it yet on the MC system best PS- will be leaving the country on easter weekend Professor Glenn McGregor Professor of Physical Geography Director Centre for Environmental Assessment Management and Policy Editor International Journal of Climatology [1]www.interscience.wiley.com/joc Department of Geography King's College London Strand London WC2R 2LS, UK ++44)0)2078482610/2612 -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [[2]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 12 December 2007 10:42 To: Glenn McGregor Subject: FW: Press Release from The Science & Environmental Policy Project Hi Glenn, it seems that a recent paper in IJC may make some headlines... see email below and attached press release! Hope all's well with you, Tim >>From: George Marshall Institute >>[<[3]mailto:info@marshall.org>[4]mailto:info@marshall.org] >>Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:24 PM >>To: <[5]mailto:info@marshall.org>info@marshall.org >>Subject: 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 <[6]mailto:info@sepp.org>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 <[7]mailto:info@sepp.org>info@sepp.org. >> >>The George C. Marshall Institute | 1625 K St. NW Suite, 1050 | >>Washington | DC | 20006 3133. 2008-03-06 11:50:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:50:38 +0000 (GMT) from: David Lister subject: PowerPoint for ARUP/GLA meeting 10/03/08 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, A simple PP file is attached. You may wish to change titles etc. I did not include the same time-series as that used in the China paper - I had another version that shows the Kew series too. This shows how the Kew and Heathrow series "cross over" - presumably due to the increasing urbanization around Heathrow. Let me know if you need any changes etc. Cheers David Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CRU_ARUP_GLA_10.03.08.ppt" 4690. 2008-03-06 16:12:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:12:59 +0000 from: chris bradley subject: RE: Humidity, and hadcrut3 to: Phil Jones Many thanks for your reply. I'll look forward to seeing the revised paper. One other energy contribution/sink I've wondered about, I'm not sure I mentioned it before, is wind speed. The energy to increment dry air by 1degC is equivalent to the energy required to accelerate the same from, for example, 20m/s to 48m/s. I have no idea what the contribution the wind speeds of the upper atmosphere make to the 'global average' wind speed, but if the starting av. velocity is much higher, then it becomes a much smaller velocity change that may be only marginally noticed at surface level. e.g +1degC==+9m/s (starting at 100m/s). It's just a thought! My issue/concern, and the reason for my interest, is that if wind speed AND humidity are both on the increase they may be masking an effect of sufficent magnitude that the actual dry/static temperature change is actually a 'relatively minor' phenomenon, in terms of the total energy flow calculation for the atmosphere!? best regards, Chris MB. > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 15:19:58 +0000 > To: chrismb68@hotmail.com > From: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > Subject: Re: Humidity, and hadcrut3 > > > Chris, > I ought to be able to email you the revised humidity paper we'll send back > to J. Climate. This might be after Easter. > The figure you sent is correct. What you're seeing though is weather. > We're in (maybe for few months more) a large La Nina, which tends > to make the world cooler - works similar but opposite to El Nino, which > made 1998 so warm. > These events are even more visible in the humidity data. > > For temperature, weather and natural variability (partly from ENSO) is > large on timescales from monthly up to about 3-4 years, so > dominates over human influences. The latter dominate over decadal > and longer timescales. The DailyTech probably didn't bother to explain that! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:28 06/03/2008, you wrote: > > > > > >Phil, > > > >Many thanks for the information you sent through to me last year. I > >was wondering if I might enquire how the research on humidity > >corrections was going. I would be interested in seeing how those > >results work out. > > > >Also, I came across the attached graph (from 'DailyTech')which says > >it was plotted from the latest hadcrut3 data. Though I have > >downloaded hadcrut3 myself, I regret I cannot process the data as > >the data set is now bigger than msoffice permits - which is all the > >software I have these days (I no longer have access to a Unix > >machine to easily draw off the data). I was wondering if you might > >indicate if the graph accurately depicts the data in the latest data set. > > > > > >best regards, > > > >Chris MB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >. > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Who's friends with who and co-starred in what? > >http://www.searchgamesbox.com/celebrityseparation.shtml > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sounds like? How many syllables? [1]Guess and win prizes with Search Charades! 4632. 2008-03-07 09:14:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,d.maraun@uea.ac.uk,cru@uea.ac.uk date: Fri Mar 7 09:14:23 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: Earth Day Challenge & UK Climatic Research Unit to: Clare Goodess , Phil Jones ,m.salmon@uea.ac.uk Clare et al do not know anything much about this - but let us chat at the Board briefly. I certainly will not get involved in anything Keith At 19:19 06/03/2008, Clare Goodess wrote: Phil Norwich is planning to take part in Earth Hour 2008 - linking up with Cred - [1]http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&t Brand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Mar%202008%2010%3A25%3A30%3A927 . So if we are going to promote anything (which I personally would be in favour of) - should probably be the Norwich/Cred initiative. Particularly as EarthLab seems to think we are in the US! The day itself is a saturday - 29 March. Is this something for Board to discuss on Tuesday? We need to remember that Mike is away until after Easter now. Clare At 08:05 06/03/2008, Phil Jones wrote: Is this worth doing? Phil Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:13:45 -0700 From: Anna Rising Subject: Earth Day Challenge & UK Climatic Research Unit To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk User-Agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.23 X-Originating-IP: 64.122.106.54 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 1.5 X-UEA-Spam-Level: + X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO EARTH DAY (MONTH) CHALLENGE! Phil Jones UK Climatic Research Unit Hello Phil, I am writing to introduce you to EarthLab ( [2]www.earthlab.com) and ask that you join us. We are offering our carbon footprint calculator for use on the UK Climatic Research Units website (at no charge) in conjunction with a national awareness push we will be doing this coming Earth Day Month (April). This April, EarthLab is calling on organizations such as yours throughout the United States to join in raising awareness about climate change by encouraging their world to take the EarthLab Earth Day Challenge and to lower their scores by 15% in 2008. Our goal is to have 1,000,000 people take the EarthLab Carbon Calculator test in the month of April! Participating partners to date include: National Geographic; Office Max; Alliance for Climate Protection; Live Earth, SOS; TheDailyGreen.com; Accenture; Chefs Mario Batali and Rachel Ray; Dell and eSurance. Were adding partners every week! All participating partners will be featured in the official EarthLab press release on the Challenge, as well as on Earthlab.com, with links back to the participating partner. The EarthLab Foundation first came to prominence during the worldwide Live Earth concerts this past July that featured our carbon calculator. Now, seven months later, our turn-key, web-based carbon calculator has become the most widely used calculator available. Its the first to allow individuals to save their results upon completion, then come back, make pledges, and track their reductions over time. To date, over 1.7M people have taken the test. Endorsements and partnerships include Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection; Live Earth/SOS; Leo DiCaprio's 11th Hour film; 2007 Emmy Awards; TheDailyGreen.com; Dell and eSurance. See our Live Earth Calculator : [3]www.earthlab.com/liveearth Will you join us? Linking to our website is a very easy process. Just email me and we can send you the instructions. Best regards, Anna Rising Executive Director EarthLab Foundation 425 -284-4265 x 108 annar@earthlab.com [4]www.earthlab.com Whats your impact? Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~clareg/clare.htm 1771. 2008-03-07 10:06:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Thorne , Stephen Klein , Susan Solomon , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , Dian Seidel , Tom Wigley , Karl Taylor , Thomas R Karl , Carl Mears , "David C. Bader" , "'Francis W. Zwiers'" , Frank Wentz , Leopold Haimberger , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Steve Sherwood , Tim Osborn , Gavin Schmidt , "Hack, James J." , peter gleckler , Doug Nychka , Richard W Reynolds , Peter Thorne date: Fri Mar 7 10:06:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: David Parker's review to: santer1@llnl.gov, santer1@llnl.gov Ben et al, Useful reviews, even if they are very favourable. I hope we're nearly there and you can put this to bed over the Easter break - well we do in the UK! It is more than being bowled middle stump - more like hit wicket or running your fellow batsman out. Totally self inflicted. It might take you a while to submit this with IJC's new online submission process. You'll have to add in all the email addresses, but it shouldn't be as onerous as JGR's would have been. We should all then get an email to say you've submitted it - when you have. I found it amazing that DCPS07 had used 79-99 for the models and then 79-04 for the obs. Hope this is also in the text as well as the caption for Fig 7. Cheers Phil At 00:22 07/03/2008, Ben Santer wrote: Dear folks, As Melissa pointed out, I mistakenly appended the NOAA ARL review (rather than David Parker's review) at the end of my email. Sorry about that. David's comments are now reproduced below. With best regards, Ben ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXCERPT FROM EMAIL OF MARCH 5, 2008 FROM PETER THORNE: 3. David Parker has done internal review and is happy so I'll send current version to DEFRA for approval. He had a number of minor comments. He also says he thinks your section 6 is good and I'm worrying over nothing. David tends to be a very good judge on such matters. His exact phrase was "It's nice and simple so don't complicate it. You've bowled DCPS07 out middle stump!" I reproduce his minor comments below: a. p. 6 end of first full para he thinks constitute should be plural constitutes b. p. 11 last sentence suggests: "... troposhere roughly follows the moist adiabatic profile set ..." c. p. 17 First full para he suggests removal of "As this brief introductions shows," d. p. 19 between eq 4 and eq 5 suggests average time index rather than time-average index and insertion of e(t) after residuals. e. p. 28 second line says should be adjusted standard error f. p. 28 last full sentence thinks the underlined not should come before all models. g. p. 31 he thinks "there are 20 different combinations of realizations" is confusing and that insertion of something akin to (this doubles up the comparisons because e.g d(2,5)=-d(5,2)) would be useful. Not sure I agree on this. h. p. 33 he notes that 0.86 is also close to T2 lag-1 auto-corr and that from RSS and I think it may be worth stating this here to make clear that this choice is very sensible. i. Start of section 8 he suggests Several recent comparisons j. Page 65, he thinks should start in Panel A and not in panel B k. Figure 7 caption: The yellow envelope represents 2 sigma SE ... l. Table 2 caption says SENS1 and SENS2 whereas the table is SEN1 and SEN2 m. He thinks that in the key to Figure 7 the grey shading should be denoted as "2 sigma std. dev. of model ensemble mean trends. I'm not sure on this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4757. 2008-03-09 20:19:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Bye, Helen" , , "Caroline Daniell" date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 20:19:39 -0000 from: "Myles Allen" subject: RE: Lighthill Risk network - propsed event on climate change to: "Howard Cattle" , "Michael Davey" , Hi Howard, Sorry to have been slow responding: it's been a busy term. I talked to one major insurance company about how the science of attribution of extreme weather events to greenhouse gas emissions is firming up, and its potential implications for liability, D&O insurance etc. This might make an interesting additional topic, particularly if you could get a lawyer in (Richard Lord, QC, of Brick Court Chambers, would be ideal). Myles -----Original Message----- From: Howard Cattle [[1]mailto:hyc@noc.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Mon 03/03/2008 16:32 To: Myles Allen; Michael Davey; p.jones@uea.ac.uk Cc: 'Bye, Helen'; mark.gibbs@metoffice.gov.uk; Caroline Daniell Subject: Lighthill Risk network - propsed event on climate change Dear all - sorry hadn't meant to send this to you again. It was intended for Anna Pirani who works for me, but I hit the send button too soon! Howard -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anna - here is the Lighthill email I referred to. Comments welcome. Howard Dear Myles, Mike and Phil You will recall that I contacted you some time back asking if you would be willing to take up membership of Lighthill Risk Network's Climate Change Panel. In the event, Lighthill have decided to proceed on the basis of organizing events on climate issues and insurance rather than having formal panel meetings. It would however still be useful to have you as a "sounding board" for this and future events and from this perspective I would be grateful for your views and feedback on the tentative programme for the first such event (attached) which Lighthill have put together in consultation with a group of their members. It would also be useful to have any suggestions you might have for speakers (you many, of course volunteer yourselves!) and suggestions on what might fit under "another peril to be identified. Here, Lighthill are looking for perils of interest to insurers, which might impact them on the 5-10 year timescale and which are the subject of new research. Lighthill would like to hold this event around the end of April or (more likely) early May. Time to organize it is fairly short therefore. If you could get any comments on this back to me over the next few days (before Thursday if possible) it would be very helpful (as would an indication of your own interest in attending or speaking at the meeting). I'm also copying in the Met Office contacts with Lighthill (Mark & Helen) for any comments they may have. Thanks in anticipation. Regards 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 [2]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. 730. 2008-03-10 12:41:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones, Phil" date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:47 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Pielke et al to: David Parker Dear David & Phil, I think you have a great start on the rebuttal, David. While I have many minor comments or edits in the attached version, there is one systematic change that I think we need to make: Each section should start out with a 1 or two sentence summary of Pielke et al.'s key point. Then we add our stuff (which you've written). But then we need a 1 sentence summary each time where we say, therefore Roger's point is (choose one or several): irrelevant, not supported by the evidence or refuted by the evidence. I'd prefer some stronger and less technical language, but I know you're too polite to write any such thing. Does that sound reasonable? Also, Phil, I have two questions for you in my comments. We do need to expect that Roger will want to pick any nits we have showing, so (a) we should only state the barest and clearest of cases and (b) be ready for an onslaught of babble. Regards, Tom David Parker said the following on 3/7/2008 11:34 AM: > Tom > > Thanks for your comments on Pielke et al. JGR 2007. I have incorporated > your thoughts into my draft response - please see attached. > > Regards > > David > -- 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 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Parker_etal_re_Pielke_etal_JGR2007-tcp.doc" 1259. 2008-03-11 20:17:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:17:56 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: Here are my corrections, suggestions, etc. for the Wengen paper, as promised yesterday. Note that I am sending two files: one with all my changes, questions, etc. highlighted in magenta, along with being tracked by "Track Changes", and a second without the magenta coloring, except for a reference I added. I have included the second file because the last time I opened the first one, Windows had changed the color of my textual changes to red, which can hardly be seen with the magenta highlighting!! (Arghh -- Microsoft) If you open the first file and my tracked changes come out in another color besides red, then use that version, and ignore the one with the highlighting turned off. These changes use the version sent by Gavin Schmidt as a base, but do not make any attempt to reference the changes sent by Francis, as I was nearing completion when he sent his ideas Sunday and decided to go ahead with my thoughts independently. I have not looked at his version yet in fact. I hope that doing this is not a trouble for you, and apologize if it is, but it is what my mind could handle! Thanks again to you, Keith and Tim for all the coordination work on this. Peace, Gene ________________________________ From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Mon 3/10/2008 2:36 PM To: Phil Jones Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper Hi Phil: I feel like Francis, but have been slowly making my way through the full draft and offering suggested changes (all minor). I expect to be finished later today or tomorrow, as this is now our "spring" break from classes. Will send then. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University ________________________________ From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca] Sent: Sun 3/9/2008 9:45 PM To: Gavin Schmidt; Phil Jones Cc: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; 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; Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; Sandy Tudhope; Tas van Ommen; Wahl, Eugene R; Brendan Buckley; Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper Hi Phil, Sorry to be slow with this. I hope this is still useful. I had a chance to read the full draft of the paper while travelling this week and have added some comments and suggested edits to the version that contains Gavin's edits. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Schmidt [mailto:gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov] Sent: February 21, 2008 3:01 PM To: Phil Jones Cc: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; 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; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Caspar Ammann; Michael E. Mann; Sandy Tudhope; Tas van Ommen; Wahl, Eugene R; Brendan Buckley; Williams, Larry; Thorsten Kiefer Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper Phil, here are my edits and commentary (a little spread around as well as extra bits for 'my' section). I find the paper a little uneven - veering from hyper technical to fairly superficial at different points, but overall it's got almost everything. The only bit I really didn't like was a paragraph on the Wegman report's use of the IPCC 90 figure - that has to go or be radically rewritten. I have a few questions on other peoples sections where I though something was unclear (generally highlighted and in all caps). Changes are visible in track changes mode. Gavin On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 11:01, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > Attached is the latest draft. This has undergone much change in > the past couple of > months. Keith has arranged for this to reviewed quickly by The > Holocene. Subject > to that being OK it will also be fastracked and could by out by the > boreal autumn. > So we need you to look through your section, and overall. We'd like > to submit this in > early March. > We know some small bits are missing (SH trees for example - > Ricardo is likely in > the field). We also need to clean up the references. If you have > some of those highlighted > in yellow - send them. > Can you all check the conclusions and add/modify but keep them fairly > concise and in the bullet form? Also add in acknowledgements you'd like > to have at the end. I presume you all want to remain involved in this. Also > check affiliations. > > When you get this can you all acknowledge the email, so I can be sure > my list is OK and that all have received it. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS can someone send this on to Huges Goose. He doesn't seem to be on this > list. > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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_version_20feb2008_textandfigs_GS_EW.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_version_20feb2008_textandfigs_GS_EW_NO-HIGHLIGHTING.doc" 1182. 2008-03-12 00:02:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: yzw@tea.ac.cn, lizhen@tea.ac.cn, liqx@cma.gov.cn, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:02:01 -0400 (EDT) from: glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk subject: JOC-08-0076 - International Journal of Climatology to: lizhen@tea.ac.cn 12-Mar-2008 Dear Miss Li Your manuscript entitled: "Effects of Site-Change and Urbanisation in the Beijing Temperature Series 1977-2006" by "Yan, Zhongwei; Li, Zhen; Li, Qingxiang; Jones, Philip" has been successfully submitted online and is presently being given full consideration for publication in the International Journal of Climatology. I will try to get the results of the peer-review process to you within 3 months, and much sooner for a revised manuscript. Your manuscript # is JOC-08-0076 Please mention the above manuscript # in all future correspondence regarding this submission. You can view the status of your manuscript at any time by checking your Author Centre after logging into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc . Any Co-Authors are copied into this message and they too can follow the progress of the manuscipt through the review process. If you have difficulty using this site, please contact our Support Desk at support@scholarone.com. Thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Climatology. Sincerely, Dr Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology Editorial Office 2993. 2008-03-12 15:02:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch date: Wed Mar 12 15:02:32 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: PAGES/CLIVAR PANEL MEETING AND WORKSHOP to: Eystein Jansen Eystein and Thorsten if you are able to help I have plane tickets on hold but my universitywill not pay unless they have a contact to bill immediately afterwards! The officialdom of this place is truly overpowering now. Are you able to send me an official looking statement confirming that the travel costs can be claimed for , before the meeting perhaps? They need to know who will refund this . The only alterbnative is for me to pay with a credit card and I am very much overdrawn at present and obviously do not wish to do this. I have to do this quickly as I am holding the flights. I think an email will suffice . Sorry for the bother best wishes Keith At 20:46 09/03/2008, you wrote: Dear Pages/Clivar Panel members. As many of you know our panel sponsors the workshop on Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data, to be held in Trieste Italy June 9-11, 2008. The venue is at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. - Gavin and I will hold a panel meeting back to back with the workshop in order to use the availability of many panel members at the workshop to revisit the panel plans and produce an updated plan for the coming few years of Pages/Clivar activities. - As agreed with the workshop conveners, those of you who aren´t already on the invitation list for the workshop are also welcome to take part in the workshop. - The workshop starts in the morning of the 9th finishes mid June 11. The panel meeting will start in the afternoon of the 11th and last until the afternoon of June 12. Your travels will be sponsored by Pages/Clivar. Enclosed you will find information about the workshop, and registration information. See also details on registration and accommodation below. Please register soon. I would be grateful if you could mail me back within this week to signal if you intend to take part in the workshop and the panel meeting. Best wishes Eystein Videresendt melding: Fra: Iannitti Lisa Dato: 5. mars 2008 17.38.58 GMT+01:00 Til: ammann@ucar.edu, david.m.anderson@noaa.gov, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, jcole@geo.arizona.edu , drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, fdacruz@geo.umass.edu, druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu , peter@ldeo.columbia.edu, esper@wsl.ch, fleitman@geo.unibe.ch, ngraham@hrc-lab.org , haug@gfz-potsdam.de, hoffmann@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, khughen@whoi.edu, eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk, Thorsten Kiefer , juerg@giub.unibe.ch, mann@psu.edu, valerie.masson@cea.fr, christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, steig@ess.washington.edu, thompson. 3@osu.edu, pauline.treble@anu.edu.au, ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar, mathias@geo.umass.edu , wahl@ucar.edu, ian.walker@ubc.ca, wanner@giub.unibe.ch, larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com Kopi: Jonathan Overpeck , Janice Lough , Sandy Tudhope , Kim Cobb Emne: smr1972 Proxy Data Accommodation form Workshop on 'Reducing and Representing Uncertainites in High-Resolution Proxy Data' June 9 - 11, 2008 (tel: +39 040 2240227, fax: +39 040 2240558, e-mail: iannitti@ictp.it ) Venue: Adriatico Guesthouse - Giambiagi Lecture Hall activity web pages: [1]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ Organizers: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech), J. Lough (AIMS), J. Ooverpeck (U. Arizona), S. Tudhope (U. Edinburgh), F. Kucharski (ICTP) ________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Speaker, I apologise for the delay. Please find attached an accommodation form which should be filled in and sent back to us [via e-mail] as confirmation of your attendance and for advance guesthouse booking to (please note that no reservation can be made unless the form is emailed back to us): iannitti@ictp.it cc.: operations@ictp.it. A scanned copy of the official invitation letter (confirming your travel and lodging coverage) for the above-mentioned activity and other relevant attachments will soon follow. Furthermore, a simple activity web page can be accessed at [2]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1934/ & an Agenda page at: [3]http://cdsagenda5.ictp.trieste.it/full_display.php?smr=0&ida=a07181 where the program and other relevant materials, will be displayed. For this reason, we kindly ask you to send a copy of your final notes (preferably, already in a pdf format or, if not possible, in powerpoint [to be converted into pdf locally]) via e-mail, by the end of May, to: iannitti@ictp.it to be uploaded on the web for world-wide access. If you do not want them to be uploaded, please specify this in your return email. We would also like to compile a CD of the lecturing materials to be handed out [possibly] at the end of the activity to all attendees, if we have the notes in advance or mailed out soon afterwards. For your kind reference, Pre-arrival and General Information on the ICTP is also available on the Centre's website at [4]http://www.ictp.it/pages/info/visiting.html . We would like to thank you for having accepted to join this event and for your kind collaboration, and look forward to welcoming you to the ICTP in June. All the best. Lisa Iannitti Secretary-in-charge (on behalf of the Organizers) ******************************************************************************* Lisa Iannitti â¯"We are not permitted to choose the International Centre for frame of our destiny.... but what we put into Theoretical Physics (ICTP) it, is ours..." - Dag Hammarskjöld⯠of UNESCO and the IAEA Strada Costiera 11 34014 Trieste, Italy tel.: +39 - 040 - 2240227 fax.: +39 - 040 - 2240558 ICTP website: [5]http://www.ictp.it/ __________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research AllĂ©gaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway e-mail:eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no tel: 55-589803/55-583491 fax: 55-584330 Dear Pages/Clivar Panel members. As many of you know our panel sponsors the workshop on Reducing and Representing Uncertainties in High-Resolution Proxy Data, to be held in Trieste Italy June 9-11, 2008. The venue is at the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics. - Gavin and I will hold a panel meeting back to back with the workshop in order to use the availability of many panel members at the workshop to revisit the panel plans and produce an updated plan for the coming few years of Pages/Clivar activities. - As agreed with the workshop conveners, those of you who aren´t already on the invitation list for the workshop are also welcome to take part in the workshop. - The workshop starts in the morning of the 9th finishes mid June 11. The panel meeting will start in the afternoon of the 11th and last until the afternoon of June 12. Your travels will be sponsored by Pages/Clivar. Enclosed you will find information about the workshop, and registration information. See also details on registration and accommodation below. Please register soon. I would be grateful if you could mail me back within this week to signal if you intend to take part in the workshop and the panel meeting. Best wishes Eystein Videresendt melding: Fra: Iannitti Lisa <[6]iannitti@ictp.it> Dato: 5. mars 2008 17.38.58 GMT+01:00 Til: [7]ammann@ucar.edu, [8]david.m.anderson@noaa.gov, [9]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, [10]jcole@geo.arizona.edu, [11]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu, [12]fdacruz@geo.umass.edu, [13]druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu, [14]peter@ldeo.columbia.edu, [15]esper@wsl.ch, [16]fleitman@geo.unibe.ch, [17]ngraham@hrc-lab.org, [18]haug@gfz-potsdam.de, [19]hoffmann@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, [20]khughen@whoi.edu, [21]eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, [22]M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk, Thorsten Kiefer <[23]thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch>, [24]juerg@giub.unibe.ch, [25]mann@psu.edu, [26]valerie.masson@cea.fr, [27]christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch, [28]gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, [29]steig@ess.washington.edu, [30]thompson.3@osu.edu, [31]pauline.treble@anu.edu.au, [32]ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar, [33]mathias@geo.umass.edu, [34]wahl@ucar.edu, [35]ian.walker@ubc.ca, [36]wanner@giub.unibe.ch, [37]larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com Kopi: Jonathan Overpeck <[38]jto@u.arizona.edu>, Janice Lough <[39]j.lough@aims.gov.au>, Sandy Tudhope <[40]sandy.tudhope@ed.ac.uk>, Kim Cobb <[41]kcobb@eas.gatech.edu> Emne: smr1972 Proxy Data Accommodation form Workshop on 'Reducing and Representing Uncertainites in High-Resolution Proxy Data' June 9 - 11, 2008 (tel: +39 040 2240227, fax: +39 040 2240558, e-mail: [42]iannitti@ictp.it) Venue: Adriatico Guesthouse - Giambiagi Lecture Hall activity web pages: [43]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ Organizers: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech), J. Lough (AIMS), J. Ooverpeck (U. Arizona), S. Tudhope (U. Edinburgh), F. Kucharski (ICTP) ________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Speaker, I apologise for the delay. Please find attached an accommodation form which should be filled in and sent back to us [via e-mail] as confirmation of your attendance and for advance guesthouse booking to (please note that no reservation can be made unless the form is emailed back to us): [44]iannitti@ictp.it cc.:[45]operations@ictp.it. A scanned copy of the official invitation letter (confirming your travel and lodging coverage) for the above-mentioned activity and other relevant attachments will soon follow. Furthermore, a simple activity web page can be accessed at [46]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1934/ & an Agenda page at: [47]http://cdsagenda5.ictp.trieste.it/full_display.php?smr=0&ida=a07181 where the program and other relevant materials, will be displayed. For this reason, we kindly ask you to send a copy of your final notes (preferably, already in a pdf format or, if not possible, in powerpoint [to be converted into pdf locally]) via e-mail, by the end of May, to: [48]iannitti@ictp.it to be uploaded on the web for world-wide access. If you do not want them to be uploaded, please specify this in your return email. We would also like to compile a CD of the lecturing materials to be handed out [possibly] at the end of the activity to all attendees, if we have the notes in advance or mailed out soon afterwards. For your kind reference, Pre-arrival and General Information on the ICTP is also available on the Centre's website at [49]http://www.ictp.it/pages/info/visiting.html. We would like to thank you for having accepted to join this event and for your kind collaboration, and look forward to welcoming you to the ICTP in June. All the best. Lisa Iannitti Secretary-in-charge (on behalf of the Organizers) ******************************************************************************* Lisa Iannittiâ¯"We are not permitted to choose the International Centre forframe of our destiny.... but what we put into Theoretical Physics (ICTP)it, is ours..." - Dag Hammarskjöld⯠of UNESCO and the IAEA Strada Costiera 11 34014 Trieste, Italy tel.: +39 - 040 - 2240227 fax.: +39 - 040 - 2240558 ICTP website: [50]http://www.ictp.it/ __________________________________ Eystein Jansen Professor/Director Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research Allégaten 55, N 5007 Bergen, Norway e-mail:[51]eystein.jansen@bjerknes.uib.no tel: 55-589803/55-583491 fax: 55-584330 407. 2008-03-12 23:19:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:19:38 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: Figures 3 and 5 for Wengen paper to: , , Hi Phil, Tim, and Caspar: Here is a blown-up version of Figure 3. This is the best I can do with this figure to make it more legible, as I don't have the originals to attempt editing labels, etc. Caspar, if you would like these panels to be formatted differently, then new originals would need to be produced (the content needs to be frozen at this point, though, except as noted immediately below)... ...I believe that panels (b) and (d) in Figure 3 were in need of updating in terms of the correct implementation of the CPS methodology...at least the Wengen paper text says this (highlighted in yellow), which I wrote but don't now recall why. Caspar, also note in Figure 5 of the paper that there is need to specify which model-based reconstruction conditions were used for the post-volcanic European composite analysis shown there. This question is also highlighted in yellow. I believe that these are the remaining things that need to be taken care of for Section 3 of the paper, if (Phil and Tim) my longer deletion in section 3.4.3 on page 54 is accepted. I'll be mostly out of communication now through Monday. If needed, please try to reach me by my mobile phone, (USA) 607-664-7031, as I may not have internet access. Have a great weekend all. 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\Figure_3_expanded_3-12-2008.doc" 2822. 2008-03-13 08:38:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:38:21 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: Phil Jones Phil, Looks mostly fine to me now. I'm in Belgium (w/ the Louvain crowd) and only intermittent internet access, so will be difficult to provide much more feedback than the below. I hope that is ok? Here are my remaining minor comments: 1) the author list is a bit front-loaded w/ CRU folks. You should certainly be the first author, but the remaining order makes this paper look more like a "CRU" effort than a "Wengen" effort, and perhaps that will have an unintended impact on the way the paper is received by the broader community. I was also wondering how I ended up so far down the list :( I think I was one of the first to provide a substantive contribution to the paper. Was my contribution really so minor compared to those others? The mechanism behind the author list is unclear, partially alphabetical (towards the end), but partly not. You are of course the best judge of peoples' relative contributions, and if the current author order indeed represents that according to your judgment, then I'm fine w/ that. Just thought I'd check though. 2) page 45, 2nd paragraph, should substitute "(e.g. Shindell et al, 2001; Collins et al 2002)" for "Collins et al 2002" 3) page 48, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, should substitute "RegEM (implemented with TTLS as described by Mann et al 2007) for "RegEM". 4) page 50, bottom paragraph, first sentence: I think that the use of "crucially" here is unnecessarily inflammatory and overly dramatic. This word can be removed without any detriment to the point being made, don't you think? 5) page 51, 2nd paragraph, logic does not properly follow in certain places as currently phrased (a frequent problem w/ Eugene's writing unfortunately!): a. sentence beginning at end of line 9 of paragraph, should be rephrased as follows: Mann et al. (2005) used pseudo-proxy experiments that apparently showed that this method did not underestimate the amplitude of the reconstructed NH temperature anomalies: however, Smerdon and Kaplan (2007) show that this may have been a false positive result arising from differences between the implementation of the RegEM algorithm in the pseudo-proxy experiments and in the real-proxy reconstructions which leads to a sensitivity of the pseudoproxy results to the calibration period used (also noted by Lee et al., 2008). b. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased: Mann et al. (2007; cf. their Figs. 3-4) demonstrate that a variant of the RegEM method that uses TTLS, rather than ridge regression produces an NH temperature reconstruction whose amplitude fidelity does not exhibit the calibration interval dependence of the previous implementation by Mann et al 2005, and yields reconstructions that do not suffer from amplitude loss for a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios and noise spectra (though Lee et al., 2008, suggest that an appropriately implemented ridge regression can also produce good results). c. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased: With TTLS as implemented by Mann et al (2007), RegEM performs without amplitude loss in model-based tests (versions without trend removal), including using the high-amplitude ECHO-G model output utilized by Bürger et al. (2006), von Storch et al. (2006), and Küttel et al. (2007) to examine truncated-EOF methods. 6) page 52, 1st paragraph, 7th line, the reference ot "the MBH reconstruction" is erroneous, because the tests have nothing to do w/ the MBH reconstruction per se, only--potentially-the MBH method under certain circumstances. In fact, Mann et al (2007) [and Wahl and Amman(2007)] both show that the actual amplitude loss realized in the MBH reconstruction in reality is probably quite small. This very point is made at the top of page 53! So the reference to "the MBH reconstruction" needs to be eliminated here. It is already clear by context what this is actually referring to (idealized experiments using both the MBH and canonical applied to surrogate proxy networks). 7) Re, Caspar--well he seems to be in his "non-responsible" phase right now, hasn't replied to my messages either. Will keep on trying, let me know if any of the above needs further elaboration. we're travelling for the weekend but will still have intermittent email access, mike Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Attached is the penultimate draft of the Wengen paper. If you have time can you look through this. If you've not much time, can you look through your sections and the intro/conclusions. I hope we in CRU have got all your comments in. We have been through them all - including Gene's which came last night and Francis' the night before. WE URGENTLY NEED CASPAR TO REPOND. Can Gene, Mike and anyone who can get Caspar to respond to emails tell him that there are a few questions in this draft we need him to respond to. We need better versions of Figure 3, plus there are some flagged points in Sections 3 and 4. Juerg - is Figure 5 OK. If not resend separately - don't embed as this screwed up last time. Plan A is for us to submit this to The Holocene next Wednesday. So we need by then, from each of you a quick email to say you've got this and any comments by next Monday - March 17. Submission will be March 19. There is no Plan B. With the Feb 20 email, there were no responses from Peck, Eystein and Nick. If we don't hear from you three by next week, we will remove you from the author list! If anyone knows if any of these three are in the field please let me know? Things to check: 1. Everybody happy with the author order. The idea here was the three us in CRU, the main authors of the sections in section order, then others in alphabetical order. 2. If you have time also look at sections 2.5 and 2.6. Issue here is - is there enough there. Thanks to Juerg for some of these sections. 3. There are a couple of refs (Juerg) we need - Buntgen et al. and D'Arrigo et al. Next week, we (CRU) will be working on the alterations- using IPCC rules. These are - if you want a change justify it, and if you say this is unbalanced, or just European, or emphasizes Lee et al. (2008), then gives us the additional text to make alterations. We've left a few comments in where these sorts of comments were made last time. There will be time to make alterations while The Holocene reviews it. It will also be better to read it later when there is time after submission. I've not read this version yet, so apologies if there are any pieces of poor English. I will be reading again this weekend. Finally, Thorsten, if you think I've missed anybody off this email, forward and let me know. Juerg needs to send on to the others within Bern. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 2966. 2008-03-13 08:58:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:58:49 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Sorry, one other point. In item #4 below, the point that is being made, as shown (and discussed) elsewhere, applies both to the MBH method and the the canonical regression method (the latter is demonstrated in experiments by Wahl and Ammann not shown but referred to elsewhere in the text). So to be accurate and fair, the sentence in question on page 50 really has to be rephrased as follows: Examinations of this kind are shown in Figures 3a,b (and parallel experiments not shown) demonstrating that, at least for the truncated-EOF CFR method used by MBH98 (employing inverse regression) and the canonical regression method that has been widely used by many other paleoclimate researchers, there is some degree of sensitivity to the climatological information available in calibration. I realize there are many co-authors on the paper that have used the canonical regression method before, so perhaps there is pressure to focus the criticism on the MBH method. But that is simply not fair, as the other analyses by Wahl and Ammann not shown clearly demonstrates this applies to canonical regression as well--we can debate the relative sensitivity of the two methods, but it is similar. This is an absolutely essential issue from my point of view, and I'm afraid I cannot sign my name to this paper w/out this revision. I'm sure you understand--thanks for your help, mike Michael Mann wrote: Phil, Looks mostly fine to me now. I'm in Belgium (w/ the Louvain crowd) and only intermittent internet access, so will be difficult to provide much more feedback than the below. I hope that is ok? Here are my remaining minor comments: 1) the author list is a bit front-loaded w/ CRU folks. You should certainly be the first author, but the remaining order makes this paper look more like a "CRU" effort than a "Wengen" effort, and perhaps that will have an unintended impact on the way the paper is received by the broader community. I was also wondering how I ended up so far down the list :( I think I was one of the first to provide a substantive contribution to the paper. Was my contribution really so minor compared to those others? The mechanism behind the author list is unclear, partially alphabetical (towards the end), but partly not. You are of course the best judge of peoples' relative contributions, and if the current author order indeed represents that according to your judgment, then I'm fine w/ that. Just thought I'd check though. 2) page 45, 2nd paragraph, should substitute "(e.g. Shindell et al, 2001; Collins et al 2002)" for "Collins et al 2002" 3) page 48, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence, should substitute "RegEM (implemented with TTLS as described by Mann et al 2007) for "RegEM". 4) page 50, bottom paragraph, first sentence: I think that the use of "crucially" here is unnecessarily inflammatory and overly dramatic. This word can be removed without any detriment to the point being made, don't you think? 5) page 51, 2nd paragraph, logic does not properly follow in certain places as currently phrased (a frequent problem w/ Eugene's writing unfortunately!): a. sentence beginning at end of line 9 of paragraph, should be rephrased as follows: Mann et al. (2005) used pseudo-proxy experiments that apparently showed that this method did not underestimate the amplitude of the reconstructed NH temperature anomalies: however, Smerdon and Kaplan (2007) show that this may have been a false positive result arising from differences between the implementation of the RegEM algorithm in the pseudo-proxy experiments and in the real-proxy reconstructions which leads to a sensitivity of the pseudoproxy results to the calibration period used (also noted by Lee et al., 2008). b. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased: Mann et al. (2007; cf. their Figs. 3-4) demonstrate that a variant of the RegEM method that uses TTLS, rather than ridge regression produces an NH temperature reconstruction whose amplitude fidelity does not exhibit the calibration interval dependence of the previous implementation by Mann et al 2005, and yields reconstructions that do not suffer from amplitude loss for a wide range of signal-to-noise ratios and noise spectra (though Lee et al., 2008, suggest that an appropriately implemented ridge regression can also produce good results). c. the sentence following the one above should be rephrased: With TTLS as implemented by Mann et al (2007), RegEM performs without amplitude loss in model-based tests (versions without trend removal), including using the high-amplitude ECHO-G model output utilized by Bürger et al. (2006), von Storch et al. (2006), and Küttel et al. (2007) to examine truncated-EOF methods. 6) page 52, 1st paragraph, 7th line, the reference ot "the MBH reconstruction" is erroneous, because the tests have nothing to do w/ the MBH reconstruction per se, only--potentially-the MBH method under certain circumstances. In fact, Mann et al (2007) [and Wahl and Amman(2007)] both show that the actual amplitude loss realized in the MBH reconstruction in reality is probably quite small. This very point is made at the top of page 53! So the reference to "the MBH reconstruction" needs to be eliminated here. It is already clear by context what this is actually referring to (idealized experiments using both the MBH and canonical applied to surrogate proxy networks). 7) Re, Caspar--well he seems to be in his "non-responsible" phase right now, hasn't replied to my messages either. Will keep on trying, let me know if any of the above needs further elaboration. we're travelling for the weekend but will still have intermittent email access, mike Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Attached is the penultimate draft of the Wengen paper. If you have time can you look through this. If you've not much time, can you look through your sections and the intro/conclusions. I hope we in CRU have got all your comments in. We have been through them all - including Gene's which came last night and Francis' the night before. WE URGENTLY NEED CASPAR TO REPOND. Can Gene, Mike and anyone who can get Caspar to respond to emails tell him that there are a few questions in this draft we need him to respond to. We need better versions of Figure 3, plus there are some flagged points in Sections 3 and 4. Juerg - is Figure 5 OK. If not resend separately - don't embed as this screwed up last time. Plan A is for us to submit this to The Holocene next Wednesday. So we need by then, from each of you a quick email to say you've got this and any comments by next Monday - March 17. Submission will be March 19. There is no Plan B. With the Feb 20 email, there were no responses from Peck, Eystein and Nick. If we don't hear from you three by next week, we will remove you from the author list! If anyone knows if any of these three are in the field please let me know? Things to check: 1. Everybody happy with the author order. The idea here was the three us in CRU, the main authors of the sections in section order, then others in alphabetical order. 2. If you have time also look at sections 2.5 and 2.6. Issue here is - is there enough there. Thanks to Juerg for some of these sections. 3. There are a couple of refs (Juerg) we need - Buntgen et al. and D'Arrigo et al. Next week, we (CRU) will be working on the alterations- using IPCC rules. These are - if you want a change justify it, and if you say this is unbalanced, or just European, or emphasizes Lee et al. (2008), then gives us the additional text to make alterations. We've left a few comments in where these sorts of comments were made last time. There will be time to make alterations while The Holocene reviews it. It will also be better to read it later when there is time after submission. I've not read this version yet, so apologies if there are any pieces of poor English. I will be reading again this weekend. Finally, Thorsten, if you think I've missed anybody off this email, forward and let me know. Juerg needs to send on to the others within Bern. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 423. 2008-03-13 13:27:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: Thorsten Kiefer , Kim Cobb , Iannitti Lisa , Eystein Jansen date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:27:06 -0400 from: kc182@mail.gatech.edu subject: Re: Fwd: PAGES/CLIVAR PANEL MEETING AND WORKSHOP to: Keith Briffa Dear Thorsten et al., Actually the easiest thing to do is just to have PAGES issue such an e-mail with address, as PAGES has the bulk of our money right now, including that from EPRI. Mostly likely the PAGES money will be used ot cover European airfares, such as Keith's. Thorsten, hopefully you can issue such an e-mail to Keith. Let me know if this will work, KIM 2233. 2008-03-14 07:21:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:21:23 -0700 from: Spiritual Leader of the Global Community subject: The Global Community Peace Movement has declared a planetary state The Global Community Peace Movement has declared a planetary state of emergency [1]Links to previous Newsletters are shown here Volume 6 Issues 4 April 2008 [2]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GIMProceedings/GNewsApril2008.htm Politics and Justice without borders theme The Global Community Peace Movement has declared a planetary state of emergency Global Community Peace Movement website [3]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/PeaceNow/GlobalPeace.htm Global Community Peace advocates have told their stories. [4][cid:part2.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] [5](enlargement) Table of Contents This is the way Message from the Editor Message from the President of Earth Government ___________________________________________________________________________________ Articles * Life Day Celebration on May 26 of each year * Let us remember a great member of the Global Community, Virginie Dufour, who passed away on 28th April 2000. * Update of Global Voting on issues * Should the Global Community endorse Kosovo's break from Serbia? by Germain Dufour * Changing the World Together by Dr. Leo Rebello, World Peace Envoy * Enslaved by Freedom by Sandhya Jain Kosovo's scandalous independence has driven another nail in the coffin of a deeply discredited United Nations and proved its complicity in the return of naked eighteenth century colonialism. Nations with oil, gas, or other prized commodity may gear up for 'free trade' exclusively with Western corporates; Western military presence to protect freedom as in Iraq; or self-determination of the kind that carved Christian East Timor out of Muslim Indonesia to become a virtual colony of Australian oil majors. ___________________________________________________________________________________ What Peace amongst nations means? Introduction to Peace amongst nations[6] Introduction to Peace amongst nations. * Peace amongst nations means follow the pathway to Peace in the world. * Peace amongst nations means having a global vision for humanity and knowing what is needed to give a healthy future to the next generations. * Peace amongst nations means Justice for all. * Peace amongst nations means sharing global values, understanding our global commons. * Peace amongst nations means sharing natural resources. * Peace amongst nations means applying the new way of doing business and trade. * Peace amongst nations means applying the fundamental principle: you have a property, use it, share it, or lose it. This principle applies to eveyone from a private individual to worldwide financial institutions. * Peace amongst nations means effective Earth governance and management. * Peace amongst nations means participating in the Global Dialogue to resolve problems. * Peace amongst nations means the absence of wars, disarmament from all nations. * Peace amongst nations means getting involved, participating, volunteering. * Peace amongst nations means respecting human and Earth rights. * Peace amongst nations means politics without borders. * Peace amongst nations means universal health care, education and employment for all. * Peace amongst nations means a robust global economy. * Peace amongst nations means the building of global communities for all life and the making of a global symbiosis society. * Peace amongst nations means a global, legitimate, transparent, comprehemsive, visionary, inspiring, creative, compassionate leadership to harmonize diversity with unity for the good of all. The Global Community organization offers such leadership. * Peace amongst nations means integrating into our ways of life global standards and practices, and global law for the protection of the global life-support systems. * Peace amongst nations means having the Global Protection Agency (GPA) to give every community security and safety. * Peace amongst nations means no global destruction of the environment and life habitats. * Peace amongst nations means educating the population on the need to obtain a negative average annual population growth rate. * Peace amongst nations means land and all other natural resources on the planet belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where these resources are found. * Peace amongst nations means acknowledging, respecting and protecting within a constitutional framework the diverse cultural, religious, racial, and minority groups that make up a population. * Peace amongst nations means that the education and upbringing of chidren include the principles and global concepts listed in the different sections included here. * Peace amongst nations means creating new global ministries serving the Global Community. * Peace amongst nations means no taxes on labor but taxes on the uses of natural resources. * Peace amongst nations means creating symbiotical relationships between communities and nations. As with global ministries, these relationships must follow the fundamental criteria. * Peace amongst nations means giving the people of a population the rights to vote democratically for a government of their choice, to participate in the global referendum on issues, to make sustainable choices for their communities. * Peace amongst nations means by celebrating Life Day on May 26 of each year. * Peace amongst nations means by participating in the Global Exhibition each year. * Peace amongst nations means decreasing the wealth gap between rich and poor, between the industrialized nations and the developing nations. ___________________________________________________________________________________ We seek more symbiotical relationships with people and organizations Note concerning personal info sent to us by email Call for Papers Participate now in Global Dialogue 2008 We have now streamlined the participation process in the Global Dialogue Press Release concerning the 22 nd Year Anniversary of the Global Community organization ___________________________________________________________________________________ Global Community voting on issues Shortly after 1985, the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) has researched and developed a process for global voting. Since then GCAC has conducted several global voting on issues. There are 161 nations that have so far been surveyed. Some results are shown here. More surveys will be completed in the coming months and published here. Global voting has been and will continue to be a strong mean of obtaining the global opinion on issues. This method is different than data obtained from government agencies of the 161 nations. Data from those agencies are important but global voting is also very important. Global voting probes directly into a population. It is actually direct democracy. March 2008 results from global voting. [7] Introduction to Peace amongst nations. Global issue yes [cid:part5.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] no [cid:part5.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] In view of the criteria for sovereignty of a people and the process developed by the Global Community regarding the creation of a nation, should the Global Community endorse Kosovo's break from Serbia? 3 97 The invasion of Afghanistan by the White House and other NATO nations has been flawed from the start. The Afghan freedom fighters are the same people who help the USA fight the Russians during the Cold War. They did not want invaders, Russians, Americans, or any other invaders, to be in their country. They took their message to America on 9/11. Should Canada be getting out of Afghanistan as it is wrong and illegal to be part of an invasion? 78 22 Should Canada get out of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States until such a time when all economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects have been approved in a referendum by all Canadians? 72 28 Should Canada get out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States and Mexico until such a time when all economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects have been approved in a referendum by all Canadians? 76 24 Should Canada get out of negotiations concerning the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) until such a time when all economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects have been approved in a referendum by all Canadians? 91 9 Should Canada negotiates the establishment of the Global Government of North America (GGNA) with the United States and Mexico to include all economic, social, cultural, and environmental aspects, and a veto power for each partner, and have that approved in a referendum by all Canadians? 58 42 Should there be a global ministry of sustainable agriculture? [8] [cid:part6.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 92 8 Should global laws of the Global Constitution become universal and well used? [9] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] [10][cid:part8.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 57 43 Should people, businesses, nations be made more accountable of their ways of doing things? [11] [cid:part3.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] [12][cid:part6.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 91 9 Do people understand how important it is to obtain a strong commitment from all nations to achieve a negative average annual population growth rate? [13] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 18 82 Should organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), European Union (EU) be required to operate as per the 'fundamental criteria' of the Global Community? The 'fundamental criteria' stipulates that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy. [14] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 68 32 The Global Economic Model proposes to collect for the people a payment for the use of natural resources and to remove taxes on labor. Would you say that is a better way of handling taxes? [15] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 74 26 The Global Community stipulates that land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. So, by definition, land here, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Would you agree with this definition? [16] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 83 17 The cost of peace has too often been the cost of continued injustice and conditions of economic servitude. Only Global Parliament has adequate legislation to overcome this problem. Would you allow Global Parliament to apply appropriate sanctions to a business, nation, or any organization responsible for causing injustice? [17] [cid:part7.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] 95 5 The invasion of Iraq by the White House is now being seen as the biggest mistake ever done by a nation on an other nation. It is a crime against humanity and all life on Earth, and a crime yet to be prosecuted. Would you agree that those guilty of this crime be held responsible and made accountable? 98 2 Global Community recommendations concerning UN climate change conference in Bali are: 1. Re-write the Bali road map into a legal document with legislation, global laws to be enforced; 2. Include sanctions to be implemented when a nation failed to achieve the objectives of the Bali road map; and 3. Acquire funds to be administered by the Global Protection Agency ( GPA ) for the implementation of the sanctions. Would you agree? 80 20 American have brought disgrace to humanity by their selfish, immoral, unethical, incoherent, inconsistent, dishonnest, erratic, and mostly aimed at making money behavior in the Middle East and towards Afghanistan. You would think we would be 'civilized' by now. Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong. There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The invasion of nations such as those of the Middle East and Afghanistan are crimes against humanity and will be prosecuted. War is the greatest violation of human and Earth rights that one people can inflict on another. Would you agree? 85 15 Should President Bush be impeached? 95 5 Some people say it was a Magnitude 5.9 quake that hits off Indonesia. Be is there any proof of that? In the confusion of all, everyone believed what the media was saying. The media was being told information from governments but no one actually can prove it was an earquake that created the tsunami. No one truly knows for sure. There is now another theory. A submarine was testing the use of nuclear war heads by exploding them over the ocean bottom. Actually, it was not the first time that some nations have exploded nuclear war heads in the oceans. Our oceans have been hit several times. Exploding war heads in our oceans is at least as bad as a major oil spill. It is showing barbarism. It is killing the global communities of life in the oceans and destroying the delicate balance of our oceans physical, biological and chemical characteristics that can accelerate the climate change drastically when disturbed. It is showing ignorance and stupidity. In 2004, the war heads were more destrutive and were over the bottom of the ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave. Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it. Of course I have no proof of that. But then the only way you could prove it was truly an earthquake is by conducting an independent forensic investigation of the ocean bottom. So all we can say is that it is more likely that it was a powerful nuclear explosion that created the tsunami. That is the goal of the military, to test its armament and they did. But they were not going to admit it to the world. Gees! Not a good thing to admit that you just killed thousands of people and destroyed communities from several nations of the world. In today's planetary state of emergency, Global Law must be applied. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must pay for the independent investigation. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. Would you agree that there is now a planetary state of emergency and that a nation or an organization is guilty until found not guilty and that we should protect our oceans and all other global life-support systems by stopping those responsible and make them accountable? 96 4 The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth by exploding nuclear bombs to melt glaciers and North Pole cap. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. In view of the planetary state of emergency, the Global Community says: for the protection of all life on Earth, a preventive principle is our only alternative. You are guilty until you can prove otherwise. Global Law must be applied. The United States must pay for the independent investigation. Would you agree? 98 2 NATO and the White House claimed that they do what they are doing to give security to its population and to the world. In the past, security was thought as better accomplished through military means. Expanding the military capabilities and forming alliances with other nations were the only way to 'win'. That is how NATO came into existence. Today wars are unlikely to produce winners. The Global Community is all over the planet. Ethnic groups are everywhere. Some say there are more Italians in Montreal, Canada that there are in Italy. So we would fight our own people? Wars truly make no sense! The world is too crowded and too small nowadays! And weapons too lethal! So security cannot be achieved through the military. The only job the military should be asked to do today is to protect the global life-support systems. These systems have the highest priority on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights and are certainly more important than any of the other rights on the Scale including security. Simply because without life there is no other right possible. Without Oxygen there is no life! Without clean water there is no life! So protect life on Earth at all costs. Wars are the biggest threat to life and the ecosystem of the planet. Primordial human rights come next on the Scale of Human and Earth Rights. Without a shelter life will still exist in some places but is hardly possible in cold place. So security must be achieved by other means than wars. We might as well shelved the war industry, the worst of all polluters, from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. No waiting! That also means having inspectors verifying the phasing out in all nations of the world, and not just in some Middle East country. The nature of global security has changed since the rise of the Global Community. Security used to be about the protection of the state and its boundaries, people, institutions and values from an outside threat. The Global Community emphasizes as a priority the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Global security can only be achieved if it can be shared by all peoples and through global co-operation, based on principles as explained in the Global Constitution such as justice, human dignity, and equity for all and for the good of all. Would you agree that the military option and the war industry should be shelved foerever from humanity and never to be used again to solve a global problem? 77 23 Prosecuting criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction regardless of a territorial or nationality nexus requires a solid commitment of political will from national governments and the Global Community. The Earth Court of Justice will hear cases involving crimes related to the global ministries. The Court will have a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by national governments, local communities, and in some special cases by corporations, non-government-organizations and citizens, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized organs and agencies. The Court will make judgments in accordance with the principles and values of the Global Constitution. Would you agree to let the Earth Court of Justice prosecute criminals? 81 19 In view of the fact that the United Nations and many of its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels: 1. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Human and Earth Rights; 2. corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance; 3. promotion of the military option, war; 4. allowing the genocides of several peoples; 5. the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community; 6. the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment; 7. the absence of proper governance and global justice at the U.N.; 8. the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations; and 9. powerful lobbying groups forcing decision making at the UN. and that the permanent members of the United Nations are showing a destructive leadership to the Global Community, it has become clear that the United Nations should be replaced by Earth Government. Earth Government's action on the international scene shall be guided by, and designed to advance in the wider world, the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, equality and solidarity, and for international law in accordance with the principles of the Global Constitution. Earth Government shall seek to develop relations and build partnerships with third countries, and international, regional or global organisations, which share these values. It shall promote multilateral solutions to common problems, in particular in the framework of Global Parliament. Would you agree to replace the United Nations by Earth Government? 73 27 Building global communities require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars, no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, human activities, as population increases the respect and value of a human life is in decline, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, deforestation, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities for all life on the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of the above problems. Recommendations to humanity In general, populations of all lifeforms grow exponentially that is by a steady proportion of whatever was there before. When there is no practical limit on resource then populations usually grow maximally and the only limit is that of the reproductive capacity of the female animal. About 10,000 years ago, human beings were obliged to commit themselves more or less fully to agriculture and the human population was 5 to 10 million. Then about 2,000 years ago, after only 8,000 years of large-scale agriculture, the human population was 100 to 300 million. After this time, the exponential growth of the population entered its rapid phase. The billion mark was passed by 1800 A.D. By year 2000, the human population exceeded 6 billion. Thus agriculture allowed a thousand-fold increase in numbers over a period of 10,000 years. Obviously something has to be done! We propose a tight global policy, benignly implemented, or it will be very nasty indeed. In practice, a human population of 10 to 12 billion would be too uncomfortably high and would add a high strain on world resources. What kind of world population would be reasonable? What goal should we aim at? A population should be small enough to be sustainable indefinitely and still allow plenty of leeway for ourselves and other lifeforms. It should also be large enough to allow the formation of healthy civilizations. Comprehensive population policies are an essential element in a world development strategy that combines access to reproductive health services, education and economic opportunities, improved energy and natural resource technologies, and to healthier models of consumption and the 'good life'. Would you agree to the promotion of the world development strategy proposed by the Global Community? 69 31 [18][cid:part9.47DA89E2.96842C5@telus.net] [19](enlargement) [20]Achievements of Global Community WebNet Ltd. Germain Dufour President Earth Government ([21]short Bio) The Editor Global Information Media [22]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/globalcommunity.htm [23]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/ [24]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/Portal.htm [25]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/2008GIMglobaldialogue.htm [26]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/2008GDPreview.htm ___________________________________________________________________________________________ About this e-mail You are receiving this newsletter because you have asked to be included in our list, attended a Global Dialogue event or requested information. To stop receiving this e-mail, please e-mail: [27]globalcommunity@telus.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject. Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailNU.gif: 00000001,340cb583,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailFU.jpeg: 00000001,0eb068ca,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailT6.jpeg: 00000001,69541bfe,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail4V.jpeg: 00000001,43f7cf45,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailE8.jpeg: 00000001,1e9b828c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailRN.jpeg: 00000001,793f35c0,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailME.jpeg: 00000001,53e2e907,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailOO.jpeg: 00000001,2e869c4e,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail4L.jpeg: 00000001,092a4f95,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailFN.gif: 00000001,745ded75,00000000,00000000 625. 2008-03-14 11:22:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:22:12 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Capturing long-term change using RCS to: Chris Turney Chris, We have written a paper recently for the book being edited by Malcolm Hughes and Henry Diaz. Tom will forward a copy - though please treat this as confidential until the final version is agreed - thanks. It is true that the RCS can be biased by recent data (and produce a somewhat undefined trend in the overall chronology when this is produced from only living trees). Take a particular look at the first example of problem applications - near the end of the article (the "Briffa Bodge" bit!). How about looking at the data with the new RCS program we have? The software is not quite ready for general use but it will not be long. In the meantime Tom and I here could put your data through it to see what it looks like and you can have the software when he and I have agreed the final version of course. Best wishes, Keith and Tom. At 17:37 12/03/2008, you wrote: >Hi Keith > >No worries at all. Must have used my gmail address. Thanks for >looking at this. > >With best wishes, > >Chris >**************************************************** >Professor Chris Turney > >Author of >Ice, Mud and >Blood: Lessons from Climates Past >Popular science website: >www.christurney.com >Journal of Quaternary >Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor > >School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources >The University of Exeter >Exeter >Devon >EX4 4RJ >UK > >Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 > >Home page: >www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml >E-mail: c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk >Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 >Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 > >**************************************************** > >Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of >course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day >Arthur Dent: And are you? >Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. >Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. > >The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams > >**************************************************** > > > > > > > > >On 12 Mar 2008, at 16:10, Keith Briffa wrote: > >>Chris >>have just found your email in my spam filter!! Will look at this >>and get back to you - sorry in rush to go to meeting >>Keith >> >>At 17:37 05/03/2008, you wrote: >>>Dear Keith, >>> >>>Sorry to bother you but I was wondering whether I could pick your >>>brain? I'm working with some friends in New Zealand, looking at >>>quantifying past temperature change using pink pine. We have a >>>robust dataset stretching back 550 years but using modern trees. >>>Using the RCS method we are concerned we are losing the long-term >>>temperature trend because of the bias introduced by the reliance >>>on modern trees. >>> >>>We wondering whether you have any idea how best to overcome this >>>issue? Any ideas would be fantastic. We've got a stunning dataset >>>but feel frustrated we're missing out on a significant part of the story. >>> >>>Look forward to hearing your thoughts. >>> >>>Best wishes, >>> >>>Chris >>>**************************************************** >>>Professor Chris Turney >>> >>>Author of >>><http://www.palgrave.com/PRODUCTS/title.aspx?PID=280639>Ice, >>>Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past >>>Popular science website: >>><http://www.christurney.com>www.christurney.com >>><http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs>Journal >>>of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor >>> >>>School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources >>>The University of Exeter >>>Exeter >>>Devon >>>EX4 4RJ >>>UK >>> >>>Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 >>> >>>Home page: >>><http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml >>>E-mail: >>><mailto:c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk>c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk >>>Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 >>>Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 >>> >>>**************************************************** >>> >>>Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of >>>course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day >>>Arthur Dent: And are you? >>>Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. >>>Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. >>> >>>The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams >>> >>>**************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>-- >>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/ 3463. 2008-03-14 11:33:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:33:22 +0000 from: Chris Turney subject: Re: Capturing long-term change using RCS to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, Thanks a lot for getting back to me. This sounds really hopeful. It would be great to crack this nut and marvellous to hear your working on it. I look forward to seeing the manuscript; do you mind if I share it with Richard Duncan and Jonathan Palmer who I am working closely with on this? It won't go any further. I'll also check it's alright to send the data to you to run through the program. I'm sure it won't be a problem but best check before hand. Hope things are going well. All the best, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney Author of [1]Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: [2]www.christurney.com [3]Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 Home page: [4]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: [5]c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 **************************************************** Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day Arthur Dent: And are you? Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams **************************************************** On 14 Mar 2008, at 11:22, Keith Briffa wrote: Chris, We have written a paper recently for the book being edited by Malcolm Hughes and Henry Diaz. Tom will forward a copy - though please treat this as confidential until the final version is agreed - thanks. It is true that the RCS can be biased by recent data (and produce a somewhat undefined trend in the overall chronology when this is produced from only living trees). Take a particular look at the first example of problem applications - near the end of the article (the "Briffa Bodge" bit!). How about looking at the data with the new RCS program we have? The software is not quite ready for general use but it will not be long. In the meantime Tom and I here could put your data through it to see what it looks like and you can have the software when he and I have agreed the final version of course. Best wishes, Keith and Tom. At 17:37 12/03/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith No worries at all. Must have used my gmail address. Thanks for looking at this. With best wishes, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney Author of <[6]http://www.palgrave.com/PRODUCTS/title.aspx?PID=280639>Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: <[7]http://www.christurney.com>[8]www.christurney.com <[9]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs>Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 Home page: <[10]http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>[11]www.sogae r.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: <[12]mailto:c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk>[13]c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 **************************************************** Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day Arthur Dent: And are you? Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams **************************************************** On 12 Mar 2008, at 16:10, Keith Briffa wrote: Chris have just found your email in my spam filter!! Will look at this and get back to you - sorry in rush to go to meeting Keith At 17:37 05/03/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith, Sorry to bother you but I was wondering whether I could pick your brain? I'm working with some friends in New Zealand, looking at quantifying past temperature change using pink pine. We have a robust dataset stretching back 550 years but using modern trees. Using the RCS method we are concerned we are losing the long-term temperature trend because of the bias introduced by the reliance on modern trees. We wondering whether you have any idea how best to overcome this issue? Any ideas would be fantastic. We've got a stunning dataset but feel frustrated we're missing out on a significant part of the story. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Best wishes, Chris **************************************************** Professor Chris Turney Author of <<[14]http://www.palgrave.com/PRODUCTS/title.aspx?PID=280639>[15]http://www.palgrave.com /PRODUCTS/title.aspx?PID=280639>Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past Popular science website: <<[16]http://www.christurney.com>[17]http://www.christurney.com>[18]www.christurney.com <<[19]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs>[20]http://www.interscience.wiley.co m/journal/jqs>Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources The University of Exeter Exeter Devon EX4 4RJ UK Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 Home page: <<[21]http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>[22]http://w ww.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml>[23]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/ge ography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml E-mail: <<[24]mailto:c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk>[25]mailto:c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk><[26]mailto: c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk>[27]c.s.m.turney@exeter.ac.uk Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 **************************************************** Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, but I'd far rather be happy than right any day Arthur Dent: And are you? Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams **************************************************** -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 <[28]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/>[29]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 [30]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1372. 2008-03-14 11:52:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, Brian Hoskins , jean.jouzel@ipsl.jussieu.fr date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:52:09 -0600 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: FW: IPCC Review Editors report. to: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" , wg1-ar4-re@joss.ucar.edu, rchrist@wmo.int, ipcc-wg1@ucar.edu John I feel that the most appropriate response will be from you, since you have been queried. I will offer the following points that may be useful to you or others in replying to the queries that you or other REs may have received but of course it is up to you how you wish to respond. The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature or, in some cases 'gray literature', based on the judgment of the authors. In general gray literature is used very seldom in WG1 although such material as industry technical reports are used more frequently in WG3. Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in the chapters are made available to reviewers for the purposes of the review, not the underlying datasets used. IPCC does not have the mandate nor resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data used in the underlying papers referenced. The governance of conduct of research, and the governance and requirements of the scientific literature are not IPCC's role. The review editors do not determine the content of the chapters. The authors are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not REs. Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the comments or the author responses, would not be appropriate. All of the comments, and all of the authors' responses, have been made available. These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the reference to the web pages where this can be found. best regards, Susan At 12:23 PM +0000 3/14/08, Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) wrote: Susan I have received the following letter from David Holland, who has links with Stephen McIntyre and his Climate Audint website, on the review process for chapter 6 of AR4 . I have discussed this briefly with Jean and we do not think there is an issue. However, given the wider nature of the questions, I think it would be more appropriate for any response to come through IPCC rather than me as an individual.I will wait to hear from IPCC before I respond. I am in Exeter for the first three days of next week (+44 1392 884604) if you want to discuss this further. I understand Brian has received a similar enquiry, hence I have included his name on the copy list. 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 [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: 22 February 2008 15:50 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Dr Mitchell, Thank you for your reply. In the light of it I hope you might be able to answer the more detailed questions in the attached letter. David Holland ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) To: [3]David Holland Cc: [4]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: RE: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Mr Holland I can confirm that you have had the complete Review Editors report and that there was no supplemental information submitted with the Review Editors report I hope this answers your enquiry. John Mitchell ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: 31 January 2008 18:04 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Dr Mitchell, WGI TSU have now kindly sent me a copy of your Review Editor's Report and I attach a copy. Clair Hanson from your office, on behalf of WGII TSU has kindly sent me all the WGII reports and many of them provide substantial additional information. Can you confirm that the attached is the complete report or let me have a copy of any supplemental information? Thanking you in advance, David Holland Content-Type: application/pdf; name="CH6RevQs.pdf" Content-Description: CH6RevQs.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="CH6RevQs.pdf" Attachment converted: Discovery:CH6RevQs.pdf (PDF /«IC») (004B9C39) 2370. 2008-03-14 12:23:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "Brian Hoskins" , date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 12:23:24 -0000 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: FW: IPCC Review Editors report. to: , "Susan Solomon" , Susan I have received the following letter from David Holland, who has links with Stephen McIntyre and his Climate Audint website, on the review process for chapter 6 of AR4 . I have discussed this briefly with Jean and we do not think there is an issue. However, given the wider nature of the questions, I think it would be more appropriate for any response to come through IPCC rather than me as an individual.I will wait to hear from IPCC before I respond. I am in Exeter for the first three days of next week (+44 1392 884604) if you want to discuss this further. I understand Brian has received a similar enquiry, hence I have included his name on the copy list. 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 [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: 22 February 2008 15:50 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Dr Mitchell, Thank you for your reply. In the light of it I hope you might be able to answer the more detailed questions in the attached letter. David Holland ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) To: [3]David Holland Cc: [4]Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 6:34 PM Subject: RE: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Mr Holland I can confirm that you have had the complete Review Editors report and that there was no supplemental information submitted with the Review Editors report I hope this answers your enquiry. John Mitchell ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: 31 January 2008 18:04 To: Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist) Subject: Re: IPCC Review Editors report. Dear Dr Mitchell, WGI TSU have now kindly sent me a copy of your Review Editor's Report and I attach a copy. Clair Hanson from your office, on behalf of WGII TSU has kindly sent me all the WGII reports and many of them provide substantial additional information. Can you confirm that the attached is the complete report or let me have a copy of any supplemental information? Thanking you in advance, David Holland Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CH6RevQs.pdf" 729. 2008-03-14 13:29:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 14 13:29:05 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: April 8 to: john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk John, You'll be able to discuss some aspects of science re the WG on this day. I'll send some stuff (or get someone to send something) nearer the time. I think we will be able to resolve the issues. I can see where James is coming from. Colin here is doing some different types of plots. Keith just mentioned a call from you and the name David Holland. I've helped someone at DEFRA several times respond to his letters. Another Brit to watchout for is Douglas Keenan. This one accused Wei-Chyung Wang (who is at SUNY) of research fraud - based on two papers from 1990 (Wang et al, and Jones et al. in Nature). SUNY have taken it very seriously, but they will find in Wei-Chyung's favour. All related to urban effects on the temperature record. I've also had several FOI requests for the raw station temperature data we use. I've given them a list of the sites. Told them to get in touch with the NMSs. All very unsettling at the time, but then that is probably what was intended. I presume you've seen that awful Heartland Institute report from 3 weeks 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1783. 2008-03-14 14:20:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Pierre Bessemoulin" , "Phil Jones" date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:20:10 +0100 from: "Leslie Malone" subject: Re: in today's news - Washington Times story relevant to IPCC to: "Thomas C Peterson" I will read this with pleasure, Tom, thnx :-) it makes me think WMO web page could use some FAQs with responses, based on scholarly efforts such as this. Leslie >>> Thomas C Peterson 3/14/2008 2:11 PM >>> Yes. One of the problems Phil and I continually face is how much time should we spend refuting nonsense versus moving our own work forward. One effort I made on the former is addressing what is the 7th most common argument by global warming skeptics, namely that all climatologists believed in global cooling in the 1970s so the present global warming view represents a flip-flop. Attached for your late night entertainment, Leslie, is our response to that one issue. Regards, Tom Leslie Malone said the following on 3/14/2008 8:58 AM: Thanks to you both - Phil, the new science article is great to have in the back pocket. Appreciated! I knew the Times was not the Post, but did not know who owned it - yikes! Regardless, these stories, whether credible or not, and however fair or biased, look much the same to the unwary public out there. The Internet makes sure we have it all. And our news subscription makes sure all WMO staff get it too :-) Oh well - see you in April - I look forward to it Cheers leslie >>> Thomas C Peterson [1] 3/14/2008 1:31 PM >>> Thanks, Leslie. I'll second Phil's comment but also mention that there are two newspapers in Washington. The Post which is a rigorous, solid paper. And the much smaller Times which was started by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and has a distinct slant in its news. [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Times I try not to pay too much attention to what it says other than to know that such comments are out there. Tom Phil Jones said the following on 3/14/2008 8:18 AM: Leslie, There are loads of these sorts of stories. I had an email last night from Tom Peterson, about a recent paper in JGR. He kept on using the word baloney. This seems the most apt term to use here also ! Attached is a better one. It explains what IPCC is and does. I'll be at AOPC again April 20-25. Cheers Phil At 11:55 14/03/2008, Leslie Malone wrote: Hi, folks this was in today's news feeds - thought you might want a copy for posterity. I dare say there are hundreds like this Leslie Climate panel on the hot seat More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." [3]http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/7 [4]Prof. Phil 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 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 -- 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 4711. 2008-03-14 15:45:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 15:45:27 +0100 from: "Michael E. Mann" subject: RE: [Fwd: Wengen paper] to: Phil Jones Yes-Gavin did something on realclimate. Phil-looking forward to seeing you in tahiti. I'm sure they have some interesting tropical drinks there! mike -----Original Message----- From: "Phil Jones" To: "Caspar Ammann" Cc: "Michael E. Mann" Sent: 3/14/08 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wengen paper] Caspar, Mike is down as the organizer, but you'll have to make with me. Mike was never going this year. Jean will be there as well. We are both going to Tahiti first - got to get ones priorities right! I'm only going to Tahiti to make sure Henry is retiring .......... Having been to Stykkisholmur, Iceland I only have to get to the Azores and Darwin. This sounds like trainspotting... I'll only be in Vienna 2 days. Recent GRL paper. Nature didn't want to publish, but then they ran a news story saying it was a very interesting paper..... Cheers Phil At 13:32 14/03/2008, you wrote: >Hi Mike, >keen to see your results. I think its a great way. About Vienna, >looks like in a session (Mann-Jones), its hardly ever possible to >get both of you! I suspect its going to be Jean who will be running >the show? or is Phil a "maybe"? would be looking forward to... Maybe >both of you are heading into the middle of the Pacific ... ;-) >Caspar > > > > >On Mar 14, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Michael E. Mann wrote: > >>Hi Caspar, thanks-yes, Hugues and I are looking into various >>related issues. We have some fairly striking results based on >>assmilation of a much expanded data network to Goosse et al '06. >>We'll keep you updated. >> >>Unfortuately I will not be at Vienna (too many meetings plus >>teaching) but hope to see you soon, >>mike >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@ucar.edu> >>To: mann@psu.edu >>Cc: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> >>Sent: 3/14/08 2:19 PM >>Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wengen paper] >> >>Hi Mike, (and phil) >> >>yep, have seen it and am reconstructing our simulations that I did to >>reconstruct the needed detail/information. Will have my full reply >>together later this morning. >> >>Also, Andre Berger wrote me an email yesterday or the day before >>about volcanic forcing and the GCM. Please give him my best and tell >>him that he will hear today. >> >>Cheers also to Hughes and his student Elisabeth. I suggested to her >>to do some tests with GCM data to see how well the assimilation >>works. I'm keen to see. I think it should be quite good, but one >>thing to demonstrate would be how the "measures" of low-frequency >>climate (e.g. Thermohaline overturning, some of the multi-decadal >>modes) are diagnosed by the year-by-year composite of best fits. >>Though noisily, does it resemble systematic variations, or if >>everything is simply a potpoury driven by hemispheric average? Should >>be fun. >> >>Talk to you soon, >>Caspar >> >>PS Vienna is coming ... we'll have to go get a Schnapsrl or something! >> >> >>On Mar 14, 2008, at 4:09 AM, Michael Mann wrote: >> >>>Hi Caspar, >>> >>>Greetings from Louvain La Neuve (I'm here for a couple weeks >>>working w/ Hugues, Andre Berger, etc). >>> >>>Just forwarding Phil's message below--he seems desperate to hear >>>from you! >>> >>>looking forward to catching up w/ you soon, >>> >>>mike >>> >>>-------- Original Message -------- >>>Subject:Wengen paper >>>Date:Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:01:04 +0000 >>>From:Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk> >>>To:Janice Lough <j.lough@aims.gov.au>, >>>Tas van Ommen >>><tas.van.ommen@utas.edu.au>, >>>Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, >>>Hugues Goosse >>><hugues.goosse@uclouvain.be>, >>>Ricardo Villalba >>><ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar>, >>>Wahl, Eugene R <wahle@alfred.edu> >>>CC:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>>References:<20080312133407.826A912980A3@mail40-va3.bigfish.com> >>> >>><E1C5CCC26EA42A439883009C76A2115A35DD2A@fox.aims.gov.au> >>> >>>> Dear All, >>> Thanks for all your comments. They are all in in tracked mode. >>>Keith, Tim >>> and I will be going through it all again this weekend. All the >>>important >>> and vital ones are in from Mike and Gene - in section 3. >>> As for other replies, I've heard from Thorsten and Christoph >>>and the >>> new person at EPRI (all happy that this will finally go off soon). >>>Kim >>> and Eystein will be sending something over the weekend. >>> No other replies so far. Juerg sent a lot last time, so not >>>expecting >>> too much from Bern this time. >>> >>> If either Gene or Mike can get Caspar to respond that would be >>>great. >>> The much better diagrams help immensely, Gene. >>> >>> You all deserve a weekend off! Our weekend off will be our 6 day >>>Easter break. >>> >>> 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 >> >>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 > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5283. 2008-03-14 16:15:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Mar 14 16:15:09 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Pielke et al to: Thomas C Peterson , David Parker David, If I didn't know Tom better, I might have surmised that he had a beer or two over lunch ! There is one issue about a full paper and a comment. For the comment Roger gets the last say! I agree with all Tom's points. If you want to keep the comment format, then you'll have to reduce a bit and concentrate on the more important points. I think you'll have to do much more to get a fuller paper. Of the 7 that Tom has listed, I think we could omit #2 and 7. On 2 we agree with Roger, but it wouldn't make much difference, as we assess homogeneity with tests. I don't think a series of pictures will help that much. On 7 we're agreeing anyway, so omit it. The key ones to my mind are - in importance are 5 - the plot John will do will demolish this 4 - this makes little difference at large scales provided things like TOBS have been taken out As an aside the bias adjustments in the SST data are far more important than anything up with the land. All you have to do a moderately reasonable job with land and you'll be fine. Someday, one of these, will realise this. Roger can't see this, as he's full of Tom's baloney. Why does everyone go on about the land? 3. Willett et al show specific humidity goes up in line C-C relationship. Paper has gone back today to J. Climate. 2 of the mildest reviews I've ever seen, so I think it will be accepted pretty soon. The editor is making work for themselves if this goes back for further review. 1 As there is little difference between Tx and Tn warming, if you can't use Tn then you have to use Tx. Globally the DTR trend to lower values has to be reduced to one third as the Tx/Tn concept have little meaning over the ocean. and then 6 - this is discussed elsewhere, so could be omitted. He should be referring to Simmons et al (2004) and the CCSP report. Have a good weekend. It's been sunny here today and felt warm! It could be land use change outside our building, higher vapour pressure, but I don't care - it feels warm and that is what matters! Cheers Phil At 18:12 13/03/2008, Thomas C Peterson wrote: Hi, David, My first thought is well, we'll just have to cut it way back. Then I pulled out Pielke's paper and saw that mountain of baloney and thought where do we draw the line? There is so much there that should be refuted. To be pithy, we could just hit the central points with little elaboration: 1. Definition of global temperature (a) Roger gives a definition related heat content and climate feedback. We give this definition: the average temperature of the earth. (B) Roger says we shouldn't use minimum temperatures because they can be impacted by wind. We say temperatures in the nocturnal boundary layer are temperatures that the world, including plants, animals and us, experience and are therefore can not be left out of global average surface temperature or it is no longer global average surface temperature. 2. Lack of photographic metadata. Roger says this is a major omission because, if we had them over time, they might document local changes unrelated to larger-scale climate signals. We say they would be nice but they don't exist world wide and particularly back through time, therefore we've developed statistical tests that identify undocumented changes in the local environment and adjusts the data to account for them. 3. Surface water vapor. Roger says "ignoring concurrent trends in surface air absolute humidity therefore introduces a bias in the analysis of surface air temperature trends". We say baloney. Paying attention to them would introduce a bias. Like clouds and solar energy, water vapor can impact the temperature. But the temperature is the temperature no matter what the cause so do anything other than ignoring water vapor would bias the record. 4. Uncertainties in homogeneity adjustments. Roger says there are uncertainties and potential improvements that could be made in homogeneity adjustments. We agree, which is why homogeneity research continues (reference, e.g., the Hungarian series of conferences). But we should also note that the same is true with magnetic resonance imaging in doctors' offices but we still rely on those data because the current processing is the best that is currently available and gives reliable results. 5. Degree of interdependence. Roger quotes an off the top of his head answer to the question rather than conducting any real assessment of the interdependence of climate data to point out that of course they give the same answer. We should note that (a) studies of subsets of the data have revealed essentially the same signal and (b) MSU data are 100% the same but different groups come up with different results. So processing can make big differences. Therefore, the fact that different sfc temp analyses show the same thing supports the view that the signal is robust. 6. Relationship between obs and reanalysis. Roger says obs are wrong because they don't agree with reanalysis for trends. However, a body of experts (ccsp 1.1) says it doesn't trust reanalysis trends for many valid reasons. 7. Influence of land cover change. Roger says land cover changes can impact temperature. We agree. If they are major regional changes, land cover produced changes in temperature would be part of teh signal we want to capture. If they are local, then the latest homogeneity adjustment methodology has been shown to remove them (Menne & Williams I believe). Conclusion: Roger is full of baloney. There you go, David. Add in a few references and we have a paper! Regards, Tom David Parker said the following on 3/13/2008 12:25 PM: Phil, Tom Thanks for your comments. I have incorporated many of these including quite a bit of the "Menne and Peterson" simulation of Hale et al. 2006 using SST. Should Matt Menne become an author? John Kennedy will create time series by sub-sampling alternate grid boxes of the surface temperature fields. The results will affect the wording so only when this is done will I will send you a copy. The text, which now includes summaries of Pielke et al's main points, is now nearly 4000 words plus references. This plus 2 diagrams is virtually certain not to fit in 4 JGR pages which is the limit for "Comments" (see [1]http://www.agu.org/pubs/comments_guidelines.html) So we may need to reconsider what we include, or submit it as a paper in its own right. The Hale et al simulation and the global sub-sampling exercise may go beyond AGU's stipulation: "The Comment addresses significant aspects of the original paper without becoming essentially a new paper". Anyway, I'll keep you posted on progress. Regards David On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 12:08 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: David, Don't refer to the Chinese paper that I have submitted. I'm just sending this for a few more places where the cancelling of homogeneity adjustments has been shown. The best of these is the French one. Figure 9 of the Caussinus/Mestre pdf. I asked Olivier Mestre to produce a histogram of the adjustment factors for the French Tx, Tn homogeneity. This is the png file, showing the bimodal distribution. I took this to be the counts of adjustments of certain values. What I'm suggesting you do is refer to Olivier's paper and maybe Menne and Williams, as well as Brohan et al. I got a bit carried away attaching all the things I have! Cheers Phil Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:47 -0400 From: Thomas C Peterson Subject: Re: Pielke et al To: David Parker Cc: "Jones, Phil" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear David & Phil, I think you have a great start on the rebuttal, David. While I have many minor comments or edits in the attached version, there is one systematic change that I think we need to make: Each section should start out with a 1 or two sentence summary of Pielke et al.'s key point. Then we add our stuff (which you've written). But then we need a 1 sentence summary each time where we say, therefore Roger's point is (choose one or several): irrelevant, not supported by the evidence or refuted by the evidence. I'd prefer some stronger and less technical language, but I know you're too polite to write any such thing. Does that sound reasonable? Also, Phil, I have two questions for you in my comments. We do need to expect that Roger will want to pick any nits we have showing, so (a) we should only state the barest and clearest of cases and (b) be ready for an onslaught of babble. Regards, Tom David Parker said the following on 3/7/2008 11:34 AM: Tom Thanks for your comments on Pielke et al. JGR 2007. I have incorporated your thoughts into my draft response - please see attached. Regards David -- 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 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5230. 2008-03-17 14:37:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" date: Mon Mar 17 14:37:56 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Temperatures Reuters question to: Alister.Doyle@reuters.com Alister, Simon has passed your email onto me. So far 2008 (for the globe) has been quite cold - only just above the 1961-90 average. This is just January and February, so two coolish months comparable to what happened in 1994 and 1996. 2008 therefore ranks well down. This is just weather though. The La Nina should end soon - they usually do in April/May. [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html See the press release. It tries to explain that human influences work on a long timescale (> 5 years), whereas what dominates on shorter timescales is weather and natural climate variability. Human influences are only 0.02 deg C per year, but natural fluctuations can be of the order of +/- 0.15 differences per year. What matters is the underlying trend. We haven't broken the 1998 record, but we will do when the next El Nino event happens. The warmest region of the NH during Jan and Feb has been western and northern Europe. Cheers Phil From: Alister Doyle [[2]mailto:Alister.Doyle@reuters.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 11:45 AM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) Subject: Temperatures Reuters question Dear Simon, wonder if you could please help me again at Reuters with a question about how warm 2008 looks like being? I am planning a story to run on Wednesday looking ahead to the first day of spring (on March 20) in the northern hemisphere and how far ahead or behind world temperatures are in 2008 compared to the historical averge. Would Phil Jones or a colleague would be willing to comment as he has helpfully done in the past? Either by mail or by phone? I saw your release from Jan. 3 about 2008 being another top 10 year but the ooolest since 2000 [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html but a release on March 5 seems to show that January worldwide was the chilliest for about 20 years [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variabi lity.html -- Is spring arriving early or late this year across the northern hemisphere compared to the 1961-90 average? From the data available so far, where does early 2008 rank in the historical list? -- Where will 2008 rank on the overall list? (top 10/least warm since 2000?) -- Is La Nina fading: when will it end? -- Some climate sceptics say "global warming has stopped" since the warmest year was back in 1998. Is there anything to that? My phones are (in Norway) (+47) 22 93 69 61 or cell (+47) 900 87 663 Best wishes, Alister -----Original Message----- From: Dunford Simon Mr (COMM) k821 [[5]mailto:S.Dunford@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 27. juli 2006 16:01 To: Alister Doyle; Dunford Simon Mr (COMM) k821 Subject: RE: David Viner press release Great, thanks Alister. Let us know if we can help further. Simon ----------------------------- Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [6]http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press ----------------------------- Diary date: 2-9 September 2006 - BA Festival of Science comes to Norwich. Hosted by the University of East Anglia, the Norwich Research Park and the city of Norwich. [7]http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/FestivalofScience/ >-----Original Message----- >From: Alister Doyle [[8]mailto:Alister.Doyle@reuters.com] >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:49 PM >To: Dunford Simon Mr (COMM) k821 >Subject: RE: David Viner press release > >Thanks Annie/Simon, this one made it - for some reason the first one >fell through a crack on the way here. Must be the heat. I will run the >story this afternoon. > >Best wishes, > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dunford Simon Mr (COMM) k821 [[9]mailto:S.Dunford@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 27. juli 2006 14:45 >To: Alister Doyle >Subject: FW: David Viner press release > > Alister - it was sent over an hour ago. Trying again. Annie > > >----------------------------- >Simon Dunford, Press Officer, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 >[10]http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press >----------------------------- > >Diary date: 2-9 September 2006 - BA Festival of Science comes to >Norwich. Hosted by the University of East Anglia, the Norwich Research >Park and the city of Norwich. >[11]http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/FestivalofScience/ >-----Original Message----- >From: Dunford Simon Mr (COMM) k821 >Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:14 PM >To: 'alister.doyle@reuters.com' >Subject: David Viner press release > >Hi Alister >Attached and pasted below is the press release, as requested. There is >no embargo. >Simon > >----------------------------- >Simon Dunford, Press Officer, >University of East Anglia, >Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 >[12]http://comm.uea.ac.uk/press >----------------------------- > >Diary date: 2-9 September 2006 - BA Festival of Science comes to >Norwich. Hosted by the University of East Anglia, the Norwich Research >Park and the city of Norwich. >[13]http://www.the-ba.net/the-ba/Events/FestivalofScience/ > >For immediate release Thursday 27th July 2006 > > PRESS RELEASE > >The Key Impacts of Climate Change on Tourism > >Climate change could dramatically change the face of tourism, according >to a collection of new research papers on the impacts of climate change >on tourism. The papers form a special issue of the Journal of >Sustainable Tourism - one of the world's top 4 tourism research >journals. Guest edited by David Viner, from the University of East >Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the collection draws on the work of >experts from Canada, France, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the >UK and USA. > >Existing research in this area has concentrated on the impact that >travel for tourism is having on future climates. This collection gives >research results for the opposite side of the climate/tourism coin, >including: > >* The likelihood that Mediterranean summers may be too hot for >tourists after 2020, as a result of too much heat and water shortages. > >* Opportunities for the revival of northern European resorts, >including Blackpool, in the next twenty years, as climate change, and >rising transport costs, offer new "local" holiday opportunities. > >* Impacts on the skiing industry, across Europe and North America, >and the likely growth of artificial snow making to maintain skiing >complexes. > >* The impact of increasing climatic unreliability, leading to >droughts, debilitating heat waves, and fires, affecting the >Mediterranean and key parts of Australia. > >* Problems and opportunities for nature tourism as climate change >affects the fauna and flora of areas of bio-diversity, leading to >changing visitor flows. > >* Ways forward, by changing travel and holiday period patterns, >and by taking steps to mitigate impacts by using new building >techniques and better resort planning, > >* Better coordination and dissemination of research work and its >findings on a global basis. > >David Viner, Senior Research Scientist, Climatic Research Unit, >University of East Anglia, said: > >"This research is the first major step to increasing our understanding >of how climate change and tourism need to interact. > >Climate change will impact on many holiday destinations. For many this >will be problematic, for others it will produce benefits. > >Policies are also being implemented that are likely to have an effect >on the way we travel in the future." > >Bernard Lane, Co-Editor of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, said: > >"This new collection partners our earlier special issue on Transport >and Tourism published this year, which explored ways of reducing >tourism travel's impact on the environment. Sustainable Tourism calls >for a holistic approach to issues, working in partnership with the >industry, the public sector and the market to ensure long term >sustainable development." > >Ends > > >Notes to Editors: > >For a copy of the full report, contact Kathryn King at Multilingual >Matters/Channel View Publications on +44 (0) 1275 876519 or >kathryn@multilingual-matters.com. > >David Viner leads the Climate Change Masters Programme at the >University of East Anglia, UK, and is leading the international >community who are addressing climate change and its interactions with >tourism. David has been at the Climatic Research Unit for 15 years and >has contributed to many international projects as well as to the IPCC >(International Governmental Panel on Climate Change). > >The Journal of Sustainable Tourism was founded in 1993. Published by >Channel View Publications from Clevedon, Bristol, it is read by >researchers and decision makers in over 60 countries and 6 continents. >Recent studies have ranked the journal as 4th out of the 70 >international tourism journals > >Contact Details: > >David Viner >Climatic Research Unit >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ >d.viner@uea.ac.uk >c/o UEA Press Office: +44 1603 592203 > >Bernard Lane >13 Pitch and Pay Lane >Bristol BS9 1NH >Bernard.lane@tiscali.co.uk >Tel: +44 117 9681178 > > >Channel View Publications > >Managing Director: Tommi Grover >Frankfurt Lodge >Clevedon Hall >Victoria Road >Clevedon >BS21 7HH >Tommi@channelviewpublications.com >Tel: 01275 876519 > > >To find out more about Reuters visit [14]www.about.reuters.com > >Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, >except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of >Reuters Ltd. > > This email was sent to you by Reuters, the global news and information company. To find out more about Reuters visit [15]www.about.reuters.com Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Limited. Reuters Limited is part of the Reuters Group of companies, of which Reuters Group PLC is the ultimate parent company. Reuters Group PLC - Registered office address: The Reuters Building, South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5EP, United Kingdom Registered No: 3296375 Registered in England and Wales Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3198. 2008-03-18 08:56:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Mar 18 08:56:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Urgent to: "Rachel Warren" Rachel, Here's a few sentences. You can pick and choose which bits you want. Description of HadCRUT3(v) - the dataset names. CRU does the land and the Hadley Centre the ocean. Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. The basic monthly average temperature series are collected by the National Meteorological Services around the world. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the period since 1951. For marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used, supplemented by buoy data in recent decades. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. CRU has spent many person years assessing the long-term homogeneity of the land station record and the Hadley Centre a similar time undertaking complementary assessments of the homogeneity of the marine data. Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the year. Both the component parts (land and marine) are separately interpolated (as anomalies from 1961-90) to the same 5º x 5º latitude/longitude grid boxes. The combined versions (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) take values from each component and weight the grid boxes according to their errors in estimation, so giving greater weight to the oceanic data as errors of estimate are generally smaller. The gridded surface temperature products (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) extend from 1850 up to present. Both HadCRUT3/HadCRUT3v and the separate land and marine grids (CRUTEM3 and HadSST2) are used extensively within WG1 of AR4, principally within Chapter 3 on 'Observations: Atmospheric Surface nd Climate Change', but the datasets in their various forms are used in Chapter 1 (Historic overview of Climate Change Science), Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate), Chapter 8 (Climate Model Evaluation) and Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change), as well as in WG2. Cheers Phil At 19:33 17/03/2008, Rachel Warren wrote: Hi Phil I went to see Simon Clegg - and ufnortunately need to trouble you again - sorry. Simon Clegg has emphasised that there really needs to be a section on the CRU temp record in the IPCC ENV research section in the ENV report. This means a paragraph on how the CRU temp record is put together and where it is used in IPCC. Simon insists that what is in the 2006/5 ENV report doesn't explain HOW the temp record is put together which is what he wants ....ie where data is collected from, how collated, what did CRU actually do, for how long etc .... Can you help? I'm going to be VERY unpopular if I don't hand this in complete on Wednesday so please can you send me something tomorrow? Thanks Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1054. 2008-03-18 10:41:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:41:03 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: further CRUTS2.1 vs 3.0 comparisons to: Tim Osborn On 18 Mar 2008, at 10:25, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hope this is useful and looks ok -- I'd like to pass on the TMP > data to the QUEST partners to try to appease them... Phil and Harry > do you have confidence that TMP is ready for this? > > Harry -- I'd now like to also check DTR, TMN and TMX... I see there > are files in the same place (/cru/cruts/version_3_0/primaries/) for > these variables too... are these files ready for me to use? VAP > isn't there, but perhaps it is ready in .../secondaries/, but that > isn't readable by me. If VAP is in there and ready to use then > please change the permisssions. T-related parameters are 'ready', station data notwithstanding. I wouldn't look at secondaries until we've solved the precip problem ;-) > Finally, have you found the factor-of-10 problem yet with the > creation of the PRE data? My results attached here do indicate > that the problem is likely to be as simple as that, so presumably > easy to find just by inspecting a few of the intermediate > calculations? And then WETDAYS can be recalculated and made > available to me too. How long? Looking now. Not simple at all. Nonstandard (to my eyes) percentage anomalising at the beginning! And reverse engineering that at the end apparently hasn't worked, nor did regular 'de-anomalising' before that. To show you what I mean (from the CRUTS READ_ME diary): > I started off using a 'conventional' calculation: > > absgrid(ilon(i),ilat(i)) = nint(normals(i,imo) + > * anoms(ilon(i),ilat > (i)) * normals(i,imo) / 100) > which is: V = N + AN/100 > > This was shown to be delivering unrealistic values, so I went back > to anomdtb to see how the anomalies were contructed in the first > place, and found this: > > DataA(XAYear,XMonth,XAStn) = nint(1000.0*((real(DataA > (XAYear,XMonth,XAStn)) / & > real(NormMean(XMonth,XAStn)))-1.0)) > which is: A = 1000((V/N)-1) > > So, I reverse engineered that to get this: V = N(A+1000)/1000 > > And that is apparently also delivering incorrect values. You see, knowing the conventional approach doesn't help here, at least I don't think so. I am now checking through the intermediate stages and programs with just one sample year (1980). Looking at embedded scale factors, missing value codes, etc. I want it done today. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1020. 2008-03-18 11:16:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eric Wood , Kevin Trenberth , Michael Roderick , Phil Jones date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:16:03 -0600 from: Aiguo Dai subject: Your JC paper on drought to: justin@princeton.edu Dear Dr. Sheffield and Eric, I enjoyed reading your recent J Clim paper (Feb. 2008) uisng VIC model-simulated soil moiture to study trends and variability in global drought during 1950-2000. I noticed that your soil moisture trend map (Fig.1 in your paper) and precip trend map (Fig. 3 from CRU TS2.0) are very similar. In other words, the soild moisture trends are largely determined by the precip forcing data from CRU TS2.0. As reported in IPCC AR4 (chapter 3) and shown in the attached plots, there are substantial differences in the several precip data sets over land currently available. The large differences come from Canada, Brazil, and central Africa, where raingauges are sparse (see atthached 3rd file--the station count is the number of stations within a gridding radius of ~400km? CRU TS2.10 is an updated version of CRU TS2.0) and thus the differences in gridding/analysis methods play a bigger role. The increasing precip and soil moisture (which appears to be affected little by any changes in evaporation in your study) over northern Canada shown by your Fig.3 appears to be at odds with reported decreases in Canadian streamflow, also shown in the 4th attached Word file (taken from our new manuscript on global discharge trends. Note the decreasing Canadian runoff and precip in this plot, and the negative but insignificant streamflow trend for Amazon). The final attached plot shows that the trend in the CLM3-simulated soil moisture generally follows that of PDSI. Note that in our CLM3 forcing data (Qian et al. 2006, JC), solar radiation changes were estiamted using cloud cover data. In summary, I felt that uncertainties in current precip and other atmospheric forcing data are large. Combined with differences in models, they make current assessments of historical drought quite uncertain. This has prevented us from writing up the CLM3-simualted soil moisture changes for publication. Best regards, Aiguo Dai -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: adai@ucar.edu Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\precip.trendmap.1951-2000.p1.gif" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\precip.trendmap.1951-2000.p2.gif" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\pre-stn-1950-60-70-75-80-90-95-00-Jan.gif" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Fig9_from_Dai_etal.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\pdsi.vs.soilMoisture-trend-fromDaiAMSTalk2005.ppt" 1861. 2008-03-19 01:50:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:50:27 -0400 (EDT) from: glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk subject: JOC-08-0029 Invitation to Review for the International Journal of to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 19-Mar-2008 Dear Dr Osborn Manuscript # JOC-08-0029 entitled "IPCC and attribution of 20th century lower tropospheric temperature changes." has been submitted to the International Journal of Climatology. This is a quick reminder that a week ago I invited you to review this manuscript. The abstract appears at the end of this letter, along with the names of the authors. Please let me know within the next few days if you will be able to review this paper. If you are unable to review this paper, would you take a moment to please recommend one or two other possible referees with expertise in this area. Please could you indicate your response by emailing me directly, or if you do wish to review the manuscript you can use the link below to grant yourself instant access to the manuscript. To respond automatically, click below: Agreed: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc?URL_MASK=SbCwCyRq8GrZkd7tTHFR If you do accept this invitation to review we will contact you via email with instructions for accessing our online manuscript submission and review system. You will then have access to the manuscript and reviewer instructions in your Referee Centre. I would ask that you complete your review within 6 weeks. Sincerely, Dr Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology MANUSCRIPT DETAILS TITLE: IPCC and attribution of 20th century lower tropospheric temperature changes. AUTHORS: de Laat, Jos ABSTRACT: Recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth assessment report. Chapter three of working group I, entitled “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change” contains a critique of two particular papers that concluded to have identified non-greenhouse gas warming effects in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures. The IPCC critique claims that those papers misinterpret warming related to circulation changes as non-greenhouse gas surface processes. However, a close investigation of the supporting evidence provided by IPCC shows that their claim is unfounded. Since IPCC should be an open and objective assessment of the latest scientific literature, this raises a number of questions about the objectivity and transparency of the assessment process, as well as whether the IPCC reports provide a suitable platform to publish such criticism. It is argued that the presence of such a critique conflicts with IPCC‘s own procedures and that there are still procedures present within the IPCC assessments that conflict with its aim of transparency. Furthermore, the rebuttal of the papers is in line with a general neglect of the effect of many (anthropogenic) non-greenhouse gas processes on global and regional temperature variations, for which sufficient evidence is present in scientific literature that they do affect lower tropospheric temperatures. Those processes should be considered in attribution of temperature changes and may have important consequences for our understanding of recent and future climate. 4200. 2008-03-19 10:17:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , , , "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" , "Brendan Buckley" , , "Hugues Goosse" date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:17:57 -0700 from: "Larry Williams" subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - Submitted to: "Kumar, Naresh" , "Thorsten Kiefer" , "Phil Jones" Let me add my congratulations to the team--Thanks! Some of you know I'm working for a startup company on renewable energy. In 3 hours I will be meeting with executives of Hawaii Electric--we likely will work together to generate electricity from our specially modified algae and if it all works take the island off oil on onto a biofuel that will be much kinder to the climate than the usual palm/soy/canola vegetable based biodiesel. Algae is about 30 times more efficient at turning sunlight into liquid fuels than any the best crops/plants sources of feedstock and it doesn't have the food vs fuel and LUC problems associated with current biofuel feedstocks. Just to let you know the profit motive may end up being a big part of the solution to climate problems--and to the work adds a note of optimism to what mostly has been a depressing lack of real action toward improving the planets climate future. Cheers from Waikiki (and Kona on the big island tomorrow)! Larry -----Original Message----- From: Kumar, Naresh [mailto:NKumar@epri.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 9:29 AM To: Thorsten Kiefer; Phil Jones Cc: bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; 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; Brendan Buckley; christoph.kull@scnat.ch; Hugues Goosse; Larry Williams Subject: RE: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - Submitted I will second Thorsten to thank and congratulate the team in getting this paper ready for submission in time. We are certainly pleased with all your efforts and I am looking forward to reading the final submission. Best Regards, Naresh _________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar, Ph.D. Senior Program Manager Air Quality & Climate Change Electric Power Research Institute 3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA Voice: (650) 855-2990 * Fax: (650) 855-1069 * Cell: (650) 387-7565 nkumar@epri.com -----Original Message----- From: Thorsten Kiefer [mailto:thorsten.kiefer@pages.unibe.ch] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:31 AM To: Phil Jones Cc: bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; 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; Brendan Buckley; christoph.kull@scnat.ch; Hugues Goosse; larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com; Kumar, Naresh Subject: Re: Past Millennia Climate Variability - Review Paper - Submitted Dear Phil et al., thanks and congratulations everyone for submission of this community opus! It has come a long way since Wengen and will be a good basis for the Trieste meeting, where some of us will gather again. Best regards, Thorsten On 19 Mar 2008, at 13:58, Phil Jones wrote: > > > Dear All, > First of two emails. This contains the submitted pdf. I'll > send the > doc version as well - together though they may be too much for > some emailers. > > It has gone to the Holocene. > > Thanks for all your help. When time (long trips) have a > leisurely read through. > We can still discuss author order. I've kept all on - will need > Peck when the > reviews come back and say where are lake varves discussed. > > I hope you all have a good Easter. It is going to be cold in > western Europe > with predicted temps in the UK down to 4-5 deg C for daytimes. > Climate change > won't have gone away as some might claim. This just happens in the UK > on most bank holidays - especially when Easter is early. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > 3852. 2008-03-19 16:23:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Wed Mar 19 16:23:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Other possible reviewers to: "Matthews J.A." John, The earlier email had Henry Diaz's address. Dr. Henry F. Diaz NOAA/ESRL/CIRES 325 Broadway Boulder, CO 80305 Henry.F.Diaz@noaa.gov Use the email address as I know he is in Hawaii for several months. Henry has also retired recently - from NOAA. He still has some research grants though CIRES in Boulder. Another possible reviewer is Martin Juckes. I've not sent the paper to Martin, but will leave that up to you. Photo email [1]M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk phone +44 (0) 1235 445124 fax +44 (0) 1235 445848 location Atmospheric Science, Space Science and Technology Department address CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory address Chilton address Didcot address Oxfordshire address OX11 0QX address UK Hard copy versions are in the post to you (your home address) and also to Frank's. They have left CRU today. Cheers Phil Henry, Following a meeting in Wengen a number of us have written an extensive review of Late-Holocene paleoclimatology. We are sending the review to The Holocene. To save a little time, the editor, John Matthews, who is cc'd on this letter has asked us to the send the paper directly. The paper is attached. If you can do the review, John would be very grateful, as would all the authors of paper, especially me. Send your review comments to John Matthews directly. Email back to John and me if you haven't the time. After Easter John can send you journal review forms, if you're able to do the review. Cheers Phil Dr. Henry F. Diaz NOAA/ESRL/CIRES 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3130. 2008-03-20 16:38:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:38:39 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: further CRUTS2.1 vs 3.0 comparisons to: Phil Jones ,Ian Harris Here's the comparison when I make my own TMN from TMP and DTR for v3.0 and compare with TMN from v2.1. Tim -------------------------- Phil & Harry, Next problem! : I've now made comparisons for TMN, TMX and DTR for v3.0 vs. v2.1. Attached is the result for TMN. You'll see we now have 4 plots per month, for Jan-Apr-Jul-Oct. Plot 1 is the temporal correlation. Plot 2 is the SD of v2.1. Plot 3 is the ratio of v2.1 SD to v3.0 SD. Plot 4 is the SD of v3.0. Clearly the correlation is rather weak in many areas and the ratio of standard deviations exceeds 1.5 across most of S America, Africa and India, plus Greenland and N. Russia. I think that this may be due to the way you've made the data. I've checked Mitchell and Jones (2003) and it says very clearly that TMN (and TMX) are derived variables, taken entirely from the grids of TMP and DTR (presumably TMN = TMP - 0.5*DTR and TMX = TMP + 0.5*DTR???). Now if you haven't followed this approach for making v3.0 but have instead "independently" made gridded fields of TMP, DTR, TMN and TMP, relaxing to climatology where there are no nearby observations, so that they are all primary variables and none are derived, then if you have TMP data but not DTR, TMN or TMX values, the latter 3 will be relaxed to climatology. But the v2.1 methodology would relaxed DTR to climatology, but TMN would be TMPactual - 0.5*DTRclimatology, and hence would still have variations that paralleled the observed variations in TMPactual. Since TMN and TMX are both correlated with TMP, the v2.1 method is clearly the right way to go. The only time when something different to both approaches might be useful is if you have lots of stations/months with only TMN or TMX but not both. But Harry says that you generally have both or none. In which case v2.1 will be the best we can do. Harry -- now that I've confirmed what Mitchell & Jones did to make v2.1, can you confirmed that you have made v3.0 in the way I described above? Phil -- if Harry says "yes", then will I get exactly the "correct" result if I ignore the TMN and TMX files that Harry's made and instead make my own from TMP and DTR, using: TMN=TMP-0.5DTR and TMX=TMP+0.5DTR? I tested this and now get much better correlations with v2.1 for TMN, and presumably (not checked yet) for TMX. The standard deviations are now much more similar too. I'll attach the plot with the next email (too big for this one!). Given the time and effort I've put in to CRU TS 3.0, I shall expect to be a co-author when the paper describing CRU TS 3.0 is written! Cheers and happy Easter, Tim Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\cruts_tmp-0.5dtr_cmp.pdf" 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 2905. 2008-03-21 00:33:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:33:49 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: new version of CRU TS 3.0 precip to: i.harris@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Harry & Phil, good news: the new version of precip that you've made, Harry, now has a good match with CRU TS 2.1 in terms of temporal standard deviation and correlation. Cheers for that. I've plotted a few example monthly anomalies and they look ok too. Hopefully that's precip now ok. Which means wet-days can be recreated, since it uses precip to make estimates in some regions. Don't forget to set the permissions on the 'secondaries' subdirectory on /cru/cruts/ when you're ready for me to look at wet-days. Cheers Tim 1616. 2008-03-24 14:28:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Tim Osborn" date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:28:54 -0000 (GMT) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: further CRUTS2.1 vs 3.0 comparisons to: "Ian Harris" Harry (and Tim), OK. We now know what to do. There are two reasons why we need Tmp to be the average of Tx and Tn. People expect it, and it makes use of better data. 1. Tx and Tn have had hardly any long-term homogeneity checks. Tmp has in work going back to the 1980s. 2. Tmp series are much longer than Tx and Tn especially outside Europe, N. America and Australia. If we'd wanted to improve Tmp we should have added series of (Tx+Tn)/2 for places where Tmp wasn't available. Anyway, this has given me a few ideas for diagrams for the paper. Things aren't always better through using more data. Cheers Phil > Hi, > > I did indeed follow a different process from 2.10. This was remiss, but > can be explained. > > Firstly, I don't really think the published papers reflect the > actualité of how the dataset was produced. Neither do the read me > files. They contain elements of truth but there are glaring > inaccuracies (including the gridding method, possibly the most > important single issue). For this reason I've not been as slavish to > them as I should have been. > > Secondly, the tmin and tmax databases are very good. I've removed many > duplicates and 'badly augmented' stations and the two databases I used > are completely aligned. I think that if stations are measuring a > parameter then that's the truth of the matter (conceding the > complications arising from measurement times). > > There are climatologies for DTR, TMN and TMX. This also pushed me > towards treating them as primary parameters. > > I derived a DTR database from the TMN and TMX databases, and gridded > all three. That's what you're playing with. > > If you want TMN and TMX to be derived from TMP and DTR, so be it > (though it seems superfluous since it's simply derived). > > The problem comes when one considers this process - when we are talking > about TMN and TMX as theoretical constructs that may not have existed > at all. > > The TMN, TMX (and therefore DTR) databases each have 13654 stations. > Even if they require further cleaning, and I'm sure that they do, > that's still a lot more than TMP. > > Incidentally, sorry but I don't really follow this deduction: > >>> Since TMN and TMX are both correlated with TMP, the v2.1 method is >>> clearly the right way to go. > > When either are correlated with TMP, then the strength of that > correlation is of great interest, isn't it? But the approach of TMN = > TMP - DTR/2, TMX = TMP + DTR/2 just creates dummies with a correlation > of 1.0. And although the correlation between TMP and DTR is very > important, DTR is not the only information contained in the TMN and TMX > databases. > > Cheers > > Harry > > On 21 Mar 2008, at 18:17, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >> >> Tim, >> As far as I'm concerned, the T fields that get gridded >> are Tmean and DTR. It might be that the climatology >> is for Tmean, Tx and Tn. If this is the case then we >> need a DTR climatology. >> >> Then what you say below is how I would calculate as you say. >> >> Hopefully this is what Harry has done. >> >> It might be that Harry has done a Tx and Tn gridding as the >> two datasets aren't exactly the same - so you lose a bit of >> data getting DTR, but it is very, very small. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> Phil -- if Harry says "yes", then will I get exactly the "correct" >>> result if I ignore the TMN and TMX files that Harry's made and >>> instead make my own from TMP and DTR, using: >>> >>> TMN=TMP-0.5DTR and TMX=TMP+0.5DTR? >>> >>> I tested this and now get much better correlations with v2.1 for TMN, >>> and presumably (not checked yet) for TMX. The standard deviations >>> are now much more similar too. >>> Here's the comparison when I make my own TMN from TMP and DTR for >>> v3.0 and compare with TMN from v2.1. >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> -------------------------- >>> Phil & Harry, >>> >>> Next problem! : >>> >>> I've now made comparisons for TMN, TMX and DTR for v3.0 vs. v2.1. >>> >>> Attached is the result for TMN. You'll see we now have 4 plots per >>> month, for Jan-Apr-Jul-Oct. Plot 1 is the temporal >>> correlation. Plot 2 is the SD of v2.1. Plot 3 is the ratio of v2.1 >>> SD to v3.0 SD. Plot 4 is the SD of v3.0. >>> >>> Clearly the correlation is rather weak in many areas and the ratio of >>> standard deviations exceeds 1.5 across most of S America, Africa and >>> India, plus Greenland and N. Russia. >>> >>> I think that this may be due to the way you've made the data. I've >>> checked Mitchell and Jones (2003) and it says very clearly that TMN >>> (and TMX) are derived variables, taken entirely from the grids of TMP >>> and DTR (presumably TMN = TMP - 0.5*DTR and TMX = TMP + 0.5*DTR???). >>> >>> Now if you haven't followed this approach for making v3.0 but have >>> instead "independently" made gridded fields of TMP, DTR, TMN and TMP, >>> relaxing to climatology where there are no nearby observations, so >>> that they are all primary variables and none are derived, then if you >>> have TMP data but not DTR, TMN or TMX values, the latter 3 will be >>> relaxed to climatology. But the v2.1 methodology would relaxed DTR >>> to climatology, but TMN would be TMPactual - 0.5*DTRclimatology, and >>> hence would still have variations that paralleled the observed >>> variations in TMPactual. >>> >>> Since TMN and TMX are both correlated with TMP, the v2.1 method is >>> clearly the right way to go. The only time when something different >>> to both approaches might be useful is if you have lots of >>> stations/months with only TMN or TMX but not both. But Harry says >>> that you generally have both or none. In which case v2.1 will be the >>> best we can do. >>> >>> Harry -- now that I've confirmed what Mitchell & Jones did to make >>> v2.1, can you confirmed that you have made v3.0 in the way I described >>> above? >>> >>> I'll attach the plot with the next >>> email (too big for this one!). >>> >>> Given the time and effort I've put in to CRU TS 3.0, I shall expect >>> to be a co-author when the paper describing CRU TS 3.0 is written! >>> >>> Cheers and happy Easter, >>> >>> TimDr 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 >>> >>> >> >> > > 3417. 2008-03-24 14:50:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:50:18 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: 2008GL033923 (Editor - Praveen Kumar): Request to Review from to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1206370218588875" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:50:18 UT Message-Id: <9312063702180@gems> Dear Dr. Jones: Would you be willing and available to review "Snow anomaly events from historical documents during the past two millennia and implication for low-frequency variability of AO/NAO and PDO" by Guoqiangchu Chu, Qing Sun, Xiaohua Wang, and Junying Sun, submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters. The manuscript's abstract is: We present historical snow anomaly events during the past two millennia which provide a unique temporal window to studying long-term AO/NAO, a prominent phenomenon in wintertime. The variations of positive/negative snow abnormal events show clear decadal to century variations during the past two millennia. Based on the previous instrumental research and comparison with other reconstruction data, we suggest the Index of Abnormal Snow (IAS) may be an AO-like atmospheric variability. The winter during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) might be strongly influenced by a predominantly positive AO with less snow condition, whereas the Little Ice Age (LIA) by negative AO concomitant with heavier snowfalls in East Asia. Low-frequency variability of snow records may be intrinsic to the natural climate system. Moreover, the data provide a case for numerical models, because the MWP may be more closely comparable to modern conditions 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=A2K7DqZa4A2BFkh6D2A9C5O0TfacuWnVhiER1GYZQ Z 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=A1K4DqZa5A5BFkh3E7A9C5O0TfacuWnVhiER1GYZQ Z 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, Praveen Kumar Editor Geophysical Research Letters 1089. 2008-03-26 09:01:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Folland, Chris" , Phil Jones , Richard W Reynolds , Gavin Schmidt , Stefan Rahmstorf date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:01:29 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: heads up to: "Thomas.R.Karl" thanks Tom--yeah, the ARGO floats are a problem and almost certainly contribute artificially to the downturn, though much of it is certainly real (La Nina). The thing that is somewhat disturbing is that the UK Met Office essentially pads the Jan/Feb (anomalously cool) average out 10+ years if I understand what's been done, before the smoothing is applied. this presents a very misleading view of the recent trend, and is being quite predictably seized upon by contrarians. especially problematic is the fact that it plays right into the bogus "global warming and stopped" mantra. they are of course aided here by the fact that the UK Met Office is an unimpeachable source--Chris, I think this needs some attention (if you're back from travels?) I've copied in Stefan and Gavin who brought the issue to my attention in the first place. cheers, mike Thomas.R.Karl wrote: Mike -- check our web site -- Jan and Feb of 2008. La Nina dominated short term fluctuation. in my view. Note land temps. Also have spoken to Dick R. We know there is a cool bias in the SST because of the ARGO floats --- I hope Dick can begin to break out anomalies w/r to independent data streams. Tom [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/cmb-prod-global-2008.html Tom Michael Mann said the following on 3/26/2008 7:18 AM: Hi Chris (and Tom and Phil), I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on something. Have you seen this? [2]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_s21.png apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph. My understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/ that final value. Surely this can't be?? Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office website? Would appreciate any info you can provide, mike -- 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 [3]Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov -- 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 5326. 2008-03-26 09:11:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: mann@psu.edu, "Folland, Chris" , Phil Jones , Tom Smith date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:11:03 -0400 from: "richard.w.reynolds" subject: Re: heads up to: "Thomas.R.Karl" Hi Tom, None of our SST products use any hydrographic data. One estimate of the global bias of the hydrographic data is attached. The Bottle + CTD is the most accurate and can be taken as 'truth'. The XBTs SSTs are biased warm, even warmer than ships. The 'SSTs' from ARGO floats are at 5m. Furthermore, the ARGO floats have given false cooling readings in the past. Of course in our SST analyses we still have the unresolved problem of residual satellite SST cool biases and a gradual shift from ship SSTs to buoy SSTs where buoys are 0.14C cooler than ships. I plan to work on an international agreement at CLIMAR-III in May to determine a consensus on how to correct ships between 1945 and 1988 when there were no buoy data. I do want to remind everyone that the ARGO data begins in 2002. This is a short record. ENSO fluctuations, as you point out, can easily mask any long term changes even if ARGO data were perfect. Dick Thomas.R.Karl said the following on 3/26/2008 8:51 AM: > Mike -- check our web site -- Jan and Feb of 2008. La Nina dominated > short term fluctuation. in my view. Note land temps. Also have spoken > to Dick R. We know there is a cool bias in the SST because of the ARGO > floats --- I hope Dick can begin to break out anomalies w/r to > independent data streams. > > Tom > http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/cmb-prod-global-2008.html > Tom > > Michael Mann said the following on 3/26/2008 7:18 AM: >> Hi Chris (and Tom and Phil), >> >> I hope you're all doing well. Just wanted to give you a heads up on >> something. Have you seen this? >> http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual_s21.png >> >> apparently the contrarians are having a field day w/ this graph. My >> understanding that it is based on using only Jan+Feb 08 and padding w/ >> that final value. >> >> Surely this can't be?? Is Fred Singer now running the UK Met Office >> website? >> >> Would appreciate any info you can provide, >> >> mike >> > > -- > > *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 > -- Richard W. Reynolds NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center Phone: (828) 271-4302 151 Patton Avenue FAX: (828) 271-4328 Asheville, NC 28801-5001 Richard.W.Reynolds@noaa.gov 4968. 2008-03-26 12:32:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:32:16 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: further CRUTS2.1 vs 3.0 comparisons to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, No criticism inferred! Sorry if I was snappy - as you can imagine I'm heartily sick of this dataset! In a professional way of course. My proposal is as follows: • Derive TMN/TMX from gridded DTR and TMP anomalies. Special cases: • Where TMP is missing, TMN/TMX/DTR marked missing. • Where DTR is missing, TMN/TMX = TMP, DTR = 0. Please agree or adjust these (I've probably misunderstood somewhere), then I'll code up a converter later today. Cheers Harry On 25 Mar 2008, at 9:17, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Harry, > > sorry for any implied criticism of you, Harry -- I appreciate the > difficulties in working from incomplete documentation (having just > been > modifying ClimGen over the last week!). Just trying to get through > all > this fast, since some partners have collaborators arriving TODAY > and need > the observational data to calibrate their hydrological model with. > > The preference for gridding TMP and DTR and then deriving TMN and TMX > arises in regions where only TMP exists or early on when only TMP > exists. > Suppose one such month has a TMP ANOMALY of -4 C. With no DTR, TMN > or TMX > data, gridding each of these would lead to them being relaxed to their > climatological normals, i.e. anomalies of 0 C. Yet users will ask, > how > can both TMN and TMX have zero anomaly at the same time that TMP > anomaly > is -4 C?!!! The answer might be "well look at the station coverage > data > and you'll see that we don't in fact know what TMN and TMX are, so > just > don't use them at all in this instance". But the alternative would > be to > say that our best guess in the absence of real information is that > TMN and > TMX anomalies are also -4 C, which is what we'd get if we derived them > from TMP and DTR=zero. Not likely to be completely correct, but > the guess > will have some skill over assuming their anomalies are zero. > > I'm not sure what you want to do for CRU TS 3.0, but for ClimGen I > shall > go ahead with TMP, DTR as provided, and then calculate TMN and TMX as > described earlier. > > Cheers > > Tim > > On Sun, March 23, 2008 10:53 pm, Ian Harris wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I did indeed follow a different process from 2.10. This was >> remiss, but >> can be explained. >> >> Firstly, I don't really think the published papers reflect the >> actualité of how the dataset was produced. Neither do the read me >> files. They contain elements of truth but there are glaring >> inaccuracies (including the gridding method, possibly the most >> important single issue). For this reason I've not been as slavish to >> them as I should have been. >> >> Secondly, the tmin and tmax databases are very good. I've removed >> many >> duplicates and 'badly augmented' stations and the two databases I >> used >> are completely aligned. I think that if stations are measuring a >> parameter then that's the truth of the matter (conceding the >> complications arising from measurement times). >> >> There are climatologies for DTR, TMN and TMX. This also pushed me >> towards treating them as primary parameters. >> >> I derived a DTR database from the TMN and TMX databases, and gridded >> all three. That's what you're playing with. >> >> If you want TMN and TMX to be derived from TMP and DTR, so be it >> (though it seems superfluous since it's simply derived). >> >> The problem comes when one considers this process - when we are >> talking >> about TMN and TMX as theoretical constructs that may not have existed >> at all. >> >> The TMN, TMX (and therefore DTR) databases each have 13654 stations. >> Even if they require further cleaning, and I'm sure that they do, >> that's still a lot more than TMP. >> >> Incidentally, sorry but I don't really follow this deduction: >> >>>> Since TMN and TMX are both correlated with TMP, the v2.1 method is >>>> clearly the right way to go. >> >> When either are correlated with TMP, then the strength of that >> correlation is of great interest, isn't it? But the approach of TMN = >> TMP - DTR/2, TMX = TMP + DTR/2 just creates dummies with a >> correlation >> of 1.0. And although the correlation between TMP and DTR is very >> important, DTR is not the only information contained in the TMN >> and TMX >> databases. >> >> Cheers >> >> Harry >> >> On 21 Mar 2008, at 18:17, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> >>> >>> Tim, >>> As far as I'm concerned, the T fields that get gridded >>> are Tmean and DTR. It might be that the climatology >>> is for Tmean, Tx and Tn. If this is the case then we >>> need a DTR climatology. >>> >>> Then what you say below is how I would calculate as you say. >>> >>> Hopefully this is what Harry has done. >>> >>> It might be that Harry has done a Tx and Tn gridding as the >>> two datasets aren't exactly the same - so you lose a bit of >>> data getting DTR, but it is very, very small. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Phil -- if Harry says "yes", then will I get exactly the "correct" >>>> result if I ignore the TMN and TMX files that Harry's made and >>>> instead make my own from TMP and DTR, using: >>>> >>>> TMN=TMP-0.5DTR and TMX=TMP+0.5DTR? >>>> >>>> I tested this and now get much better correlations with v2.1 for >>>> TMN, >>>> and presumably (not checked yet) for TMX. The standard deviations >>>> are now much more similar too. >>>> Here's the comparison when I make my own TMN from TMP and DTR for >>>> v3.0 and compare with TMN from v2.1. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> -------------------------- >>>> Phil & Harry, >>>> >>>> Next problem! : >>>> >>>> I've now made comparisons for TMN, TMX and DTR for v3.0 vs. v2.1. >>>> >>>> Attached is the result for TMN. You'll see we now have 4 plots per >>>> month, for Jan-Apr-Jul-Oct. Plot 1 is the temporal >>>> correlation. Plot 2 is the SD of v2.1. Plot 3 is the ratio of >>>> v2.1 >>>> SD to v3.0 SD. Plot 4 is the SD of v3.0. >>>> >>>> Clearly the correlation is rather weak in many areas and the >>>> ratio of >>>> standard deviations exceeds 1.5 across most of S America, Africa >>>> and >>>> India, plus Greenland and N. Russia. >>>> >>>> I think that this may be due to the way you've made the data. I've >>>> checked Mitchell and Jones (2003) and it says very clearly that TMN >>>> (and TMX) are derived variables, taken entirely from the grids >>>> of TMP >>>> and DTR (presumably TMN = TMP - 0.5*DTR and TMX = TMP + >>>> 0.5*DTR???). >>>> >>>> Now if you haven't followed this approach for making v3.0 but have >>>> instead "independently" made gridded fields of TMP, DTR, TMN and >>>> TMP, >>>> relaxing to climatology where there are no nearby observations, so >>>> that they are all primary variables and none are derived, then >>>> if you >>>> have TMP data but not DTR, TMN or TMX values, the latter 3 will be >>>> relaxed to climatology. But the v2.1 methodology would relaxed DTR >>>> to climatology, but TMN would be TMPactual - 0.5*DTRclimatology, >>>> and >>>> hence would still have variations that paralleled the observed >>>> variations in TMPactual. >>>> >>>> Since TMN and TMX are both correlated with TMP, the v2.1 method is >>>> clearly the right way to go. The only time when something >>>> different >>>> to both approaches might be useful is if you have lots of >>>> stations/months with only TMN or TMX but not both. But Harry says >>>> that you generally have both or none. In which case v2.1 will >>>> be the >>>> best we can do. >>>> >>>> Harry -- now that I've confirmed what Mitchell & Jones did to make >>>> v2.1, can you confirmed that you have made v3.0 in the way I >>>> described >>>> above? >>>> >>>> I'll attach the plot with the next >>>> email (too big for this one!). >>>> >>>> Given the time and effort I've put in to CRU TS 3.0, I shall expect >>>> to be a co-author when the paper describing CRU TS 3.0 is written! >>>> >>>> Cheers and happy Easter, >>>> >>>> TimDr 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 870. 2008-03-26 14:55:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:55:06 +0000 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Fwd: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing to: Keith Briffa Keith, Helema - Using pre produced ECSchronology. Should be rejected Tom At 17:03 04/03/2008, you wrote: >>Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:39:42 -0500 (EST) >>From: pcoxon@tcd.ie >>To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk >>Subject: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing >>X-Errors-To: C.J.Caseldine@exeter.ac.uk >>Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com >> >>Dear Keith >> >>Thank you for agreeing to review this paper JQS-08-0020 entitled >>"Summer temperature variations in Lapland during the Medieval Warm >>Period and the Little Ice Age relative to natural instability of >>thermohaline circulation" submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science. >> >>I have attached a PDF file of the author's manuscript. Please could >>you perform your review and return your comments and recommendation >>to me at your earliest convenience. >> >>let me know if there is a problem with the pdf >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Pete Coxon >>Journal of Quaternary Science >> >>========================== >>Sign up for e-mail alerts to Journal of Quaternary Science >>and receive the latest tables of contents >>immediately upon publication >>http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs >>========================== > > > > >-- >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\Helema2008 rev.doc" Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 3041. 2008-03-27 14:47:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Mar 27 14:47:08 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: a figure on the CRU web page to: David Parker Thanks. I might not have got it or deleted it by mistake at home last night. Phil At 14:35 27/03/2008, you wrote: Phil I informed Mike cc Tom Karl yesterday. David On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 14:28 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > David, > I assume you will be sending this to Mike Mann and the rest on > those emails. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:09 27/03/2008, David Parker wrote: > >Phil, Tom > > > >We have changed our plots on [1]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/ and > >on [2]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/ and > >added a warning note regarding what was there before! > > > >Regards > > > >David > > > >On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:34 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > Tom, > > > Yes, we can create annuals from just one month. There has been > > > some other > > > correspondence about this with a number of people. The Hadley Centre > > > are doing it also. > > > It seems as though there are a number of people out there who are > > > forgetting > > > to read the small print! > > > The HC will be changing theirs, so perhaps David can cc you on > > > that when ready. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 14:30 26/03/2008, you wrote: > > > > Hi, Phil, > > > > > > > > I was trying to answer a friend's question about the solar > > > > impact article in Physics Today (March issue). As they use your > > > > data I thought I'd see why yours shows something different than > > > > ours. It turned out, in my opinion, to be caused by some odd data > > > > processing they were doing to remove the effect of volcanoes and > > > > also thereby el Ninos. But I thought I'd point out to you that, as > > > > the figure below shows, you apparently are able to create annual > > > > values and put them in a plot with only 2 months of the year > > > > available. (At first I checked to see why our 2007 value disagreed > > > > so much with ours, but then found out it was your 2008 value > > > > instead.) > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Tom > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [] > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 750. 2008-03-27 16:19:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:19:54 -0000 from: "Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)" subject: Holland response to: "k.briffa@uea.ac.uk" <'k.briffa@uea.ac.uk'>, "Brian Hoskins" , "jean.jouzel@ipsl.jussieu.fr" <'jean.jouzel@ipsl.jussieu.fr'> For info- my response to David Holland John Dear Mr Holland, Thank you for your letter of 22 February 2008. I apologise again for the delay in replying, I have been away from my office much of the intervening time and also, in view of the width of your questions, I have also consulted IPCC. You raise two main points in your letter. Your first question concerns the grounds for one of the citations in chapter 6 of the Working Group I Report. The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature, and in some cases `gray literature', based on the judgement of the authors. Gray literature is used very seldom in Working Group I (but more frequently in Working Group III, for example in the form of technical reports from industry). Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in chapters are made available to the reviewers for the purpose of review. This does not include the underlying datasets used as IPCC has neither the mandate nor the resources to operate for a clearing house for the massive amounts of data used in the referenced papers. Note IPCC's role does not include the governance of research, or the requirements of scientific literature. Your second question concerns the conduct of review editors. You should note that the review editors do not determine the final content of the chapters. It is the authors that are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not the review editors. All of the comments and all of the authors' responses have been made available, and are the proper source for anyone wishing to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them. It would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the web pages already freely provided. For my own part, I have not kept any working papers. There is no requirement to do so, given the extensive documentation already available for IPCC. The crux of the review editors' work is carried out at the lead authors meetings going through the chapters comment by comment with the lead authors. I hope this answers your two main concerns. 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 [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk 3532. 2008-03-27 16:22:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Thompson , Mike Wallace date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:22:40 +0000 from: John Kennedy subject: Re: Fwd: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939 to: Phil Jones Dave, My computer's busy working out the numbers for Figure 4 back to 1920, so I should have them soon. I'll be around next week to review any updates to the paper. Phil - you bet right. I spoke to Dick at the Ocean Sciences meeting and he is looking at ways of correcting the SST data back to the 1940s. He didn't seem to be too far along. John On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 13:52 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > Dave, > > They seem pretty good - one signed, one wanting a little > clarification, and one wanting lots more. Glad to hear that Nature > aren't placing too much on Rev 3. We'll obviously be looking at the > implications along the lines suggested, but they are all things for > the future. > To do them requires the corrected sequence - and we won't have > that for a while! > > The overall trend of T won't change that much as the 1940s are in > the middle of the 20th century. > > You could also infer that aerosol forcing would be smaller after > adjustment, if just based on global mean T. > > I'd like to keep COWL, and if the notation could be easier then do > that. Is COWL just NAM, or does it include the SAM as well? > > Can't think of much more to say at the moment. I'm away after > today until April 7. Off to a paleo-ENSO meeting in Tahiti - someone > has to go! I should have email contact so should be able to look at > the revised version. > > If for some reason I can't connect, then I'll be in CRU April 7. > Happy though for you to send off before I'm back. > > So, congrats etc. I guess it will go back to some of the revs, so try > to placate 3 a bit. Getting resources to do the adjustment will be > ensured once the paper comes out. It might get done quicker. > > I bet Dick Reynolds is currently looking at the 1940s in the NCDC > data. > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:35 26/03/2008, David Thompson wrote: > > Mike, John, Phil, > > > > I (finally) received the reviews from Nature (they are attached > > below). We have 'preliminary' acceptance. I don't want to count my > > chickens before they hatch (particularly with Nature), but my gut > > feeling is that with a few tweaks the paper will be acceptable. > > The > > only truly negative comment is from Rev 3, who feels that the > > result > > isn't particularly important. But from the editors letter (and > > from > > some offline discussions with the editor), I don't think Nature > > shares that view. That said, it might be worth adding a paragraph > > that clarifies just why the result matters. > > > > My plan is to make 3 substantial changes: > > 1. to clarify why the result matters (1 paragraph ). > > 2. to clarify the SST adjustment method (Susan Solomon thought the > > text on the SST adjustments was hard to follow) > > 3. to expand Fig 4 back to 1920 > > > > My other changes will be editorial. (I considered dropping the > > COWL > > methodology. But in hindsight I think it's worth keeping.) > > > > 2 quick questions... > > > > 1. My goal is to send the revised version to everyone during the > > first half of next week. Will it work for everyone to review the > > paper at some point during the second half of next week? > > > > 2. Are there are any major changes you thought of during the last > > couple months that you'd like me to address? If so, please let me > > know and I'll fold them into the first round of edits. > > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org 3288. 2008-03-27 16:46:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Mar 27 16:46:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Truncating tem series before filtering to: Mike Salmon Mike, Good. I doubt if any of them will notice. Cheers Phil At 16:44 27/03/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ now has the final year removed if incomplete. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4656. 2008-03-28 05:57:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:57:20 -0400 (EDT) from: glenn.mcgregor@kcl.ac.uk subject: Manuscript # JOC-08-0029 now in your Referee Centre - to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 28-Mar-2008 Dear Dr Osborn Thank you for agreeing to review the Manuscript # JOC-08-0029 entitled "IPCC and attribution of 20th century lower tropospheric temperature changes." for the International Journal of Climatology. Please can I ask that you try to complete your review within the next 6 weeks or as soon after is possible. In your review, please discuss the originality, accuracy and completeness of the work. I also invite your suggestions for condensing or amplifying the text. On the review page, there is a space for "Comments to Editor" and a space for "Comments to the Author." Your name is not revealed to the author so please be sure to put your comments to the author in the appropriate space. For fast-track access to the manuscript, you may click on the link below (which will take you right to the manuscript and review scoresheet). http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc?URL_MASK=ZY3s2fF79xs8KsxCmCx8 When you are ready to rate the manuscript please go to the "Score Sheet" tab. It is essential that you click the "Save" button if you wish to exit the scoresheet before you submit it to the Editor. Otherwise, none of the information that you have entered will be saved in the system. When you have completed your review and are ready to submit it to the Editor, click on "Submit." All communications regarding this manuscript are privileged. Any conflict of interest, suspicion of duplicate publication, fabrication of data or plagiarism must immediately be reported to me. Thank you for taking time to evaluate this manuscript. I will inform you of the fate of this manuscript when a decision is made. Sincerely, Dr Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology 5140. 2008-03-28 12:06:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:06:33 -0000 from: "Ian Strangeways" subject: RE: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures to: "'Phil Jones'" Phil Just received the annotated copy of Chapter 4. Many thanks for returning it promptly. I have not looked in detail yet but after a first reading I agree with most of what you say and make the following quick comments: I didn't express the point about David Parker's paper very well I agree. Thanks for pointing out the poor wording. I didn't intend to change the sense of it. I just expressed it carelessly. I expected most comment to be about the rural v urban sites and will read very carefully all the points you've made on this and reword accordingly. If there are no rural sites in China you can't really use China to make your point. I'm surprised you say that you consider air over the oceans to be rural. I'd call it marine, maritime or oceanic. Rural to me means countryside with plants and solid ground. How about measurements made in the middle of large lakes? If you look just at the raw, unadjusted, air temperature data from isolated small islands and from National Parks, that you know for sure have not changed, what do you find? Have you done separate analyses of such sites over the 20th century?. That would be interesting to see. I am always a bit unhappy about lumping everything together; it hides the detail. Have you done anything along such lines? The reason I use the IH/CEH site is that it is one I've known for a long time. I agree it is not in the middle of Wallingford - that was a separate matter regarding the definition of urban. I also agree that its data are not put out on the GTS, but it is Met Office inspected. I agree also that it is changes that matter. I will make sure that this point comes across more clearly. I am perfectly happy with this. You may well be right that it might be impossible to get countries to agree about anything new. Some way round this would need to be found. I will address this matter in the last chapter. When I've done the other chapters that you said you'd be interested to see. I'll send you copies. I greatly appreciate the time you've taken over this. I will make sure I do not misrepresent the facts. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 18 March 2008 09:58 To: Ian Strangeways Subject: RE: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures Ian, Arrived today ! Phil At 19:19 17/03/2008, you wrote: >Phil > >Chapter 4 was posted today, Monday. > >Ian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 13 March 2008 17:27 >To: Ian Strangeways >Cc: Matt Lloyd >Subject: Re: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures > > > Ian, > Of the 4 you've done so far, the best to look through would > be number 4 on Measuring land surface air temperatures. I say > this as I presume this will look into homogeneity aspects. > > Of the others 7-9 are the ones I'd like to see. I hope you can > persuade Chris at MOHC to look at 5 and 6. > > So send 4. I can print it out here. > > Travelling a bit soon. What I'll likely do is take it and then post a > hand-annotated copy back. Hope this OK. I should be able to > get #4 back to the week of April 6-10. Need a postal address > at some point. > > David Parker would be good for #3, if you've not already done that. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 10:42 13/03/2008, Ian Strangeways wrote: > >Dear Phil > > > >I have now written the first drafts of chapters > >1 to 4 of my book 'Measuring Global Temperatures' > > > >1 The balance of energy > >2 Thermometry > >3 Screens, stands and shelters > >4 Measuring land surface air temperatures > > > >Chapter 5 is nearly completed (As you know, I am > >awaiting more details of the new small drifting buoys) > > > >5 Measuring sea surface temperatures > > > >You said you would be interested to take a look > >at what I wrote and I am happy to send you > >copies. However, I imagine you will not have > >time to read everything, so if you would like to > >suggest which of the above you would like to > >see, I will send you copies. Should you want to look at them all, that is >OK. > > > >It may be that you would rather wait until all > >chapters are completed. Or you might just like > >to see chapters which I have not written yet. The remaining chapters are: > > > >6 Ocean temperature profiles (Argo) > >7 Global surface instrument networks (GCOS, etc) > >8 From point measurements to global means > >9 Temperature changes since 1950 > >10 Future measurements > > > >Just one thing - I'd appreciate a fairy quick > >response to what you read so as not to have > >these chapters hanging around unfinished for too > >long. I want to get them out of the way as soon as possible. > > > >If necessary I could come to Norwich, but if it > >can be done by email, so much the better. > > > >Look forward to hearing from you. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Ian > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2448. 2008-03-30 22:18:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: Malcolm Hughes , Keith Briffa , Eugene R Wahl date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 22:18:42 -0400 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: to: mann@psu.edu Malcolm and Mike, I wouldn't read too much into this. I believe that all we are looking at is the difference between a statisticians approach and us in geophysics. The statisticians like to simulate many ensembles. I had the same discussions with our guys at NCAR. The tendency for them is to include all possible reconstructions and then describe the distributions. Our approach has been to throw away reconstructions that don't make sense or that don't pass verification. So its more philosophical than anything else. Though Mike might be right in the sense that the choices can lead some of these approaches astray. We had this with regard to the selections of uncertainty, what is actually independent uncertainty. There a good and strong check on reality is necessary. So we shall see in Vienna ... Caspar On Mar 30, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Michael Mann wrote: Malcolm, in short, this looks like nonsense. there is nothing magic about 'Bayesian' methods. Many of the methods we use can easily be recast as Bayesian approaches, the critical question comes down to what the "prior" is. For example, in RegEM, the prior is the first 'guess' in the iterative expectation-maximization algorithm. Of course, if the final result is sensitive to that choice, one becomes a bit worried, the pitfall indeed of many a Bayesian approach. mike Caspar Ammann wrote: Malcolm, are you referring to this? [1]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/03128/EGU2007-J-03128.pdf?PHPSESSID=e 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 -- 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 Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [5]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 5332. 2008-03-31 03:17:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: Caspar Ammann , Michael Mann , Keith Briffa , "Wahl, Eugene R" date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:17:59 -0400 from: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu subject: Re: question to: Malcolm Hughes Hi Malcolm, I'm on the case as it were. It is another "attack the hockey stick and throw out all prior tree ring work in the process" paper by the look of it. Pretty naive at that level. I am reviewing the paper submitted to IJC. Schofield is at Columbia in the Stats Dept, but I don't know him. I am discussing this with Manu Lall as well who is an expert on Hierarchical Bayes. So when I get back to Lamont on May 6 I will sort this matter out in better detail. Cheers, Ed Quoting Malcolm Hughes : > Guys - know anything about Matthew Schofield and Richard Barker's > "Deconstructing reconstruction" approach? They are making some pretty > sweeping claims. What I could find on the web is attached, plus they > seemed to have given a talk or poster at last year's EGU. Cheers, Malcolm > > -- > Malcolm K Hughes > Regents' Professor > Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research > The University of Arizona > 105 W Stadium > Tucson, AZ 85721 > USA > > tel: +1-520-621-6470 > fax: +1-520-621-8229 > > mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu > > http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/8 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 3574. 2008-03-31 18:00:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Malcolm Hughes" , "Keith Briffa" date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:00:46 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: to: "Caspar Ammann" , Hello all: A clarification...by "truth" in the second paragraph below I don't mean to imply that critiques of reconstruction methods based simply on examinations of ensemble distributions should stand, per se. I only meant to say that recognition of the universe of possible reconstructions is a worthwhile addition of knowledge. Conceivably, doing this might possibly help us refine our validation schemes. Caspar and I have taken one look into this set of issues in the companion piece to the Wahl-Ammann paper in Climatic Change last fall (the Ammann-Wahl article there), to deal with critiques of validation methodology raised by MM. We revisited their ensemble approach (reconstructions driven only by the full-AR persistence structure in the proxies), but restricted its output with the kinds of calibration and verification criteria we use in actual practice (which MM did not do). The idea was to do exactly the kind of geophysical contextualization that Caspar mentions -- thereby incorporating the ensemble method, but also embedding the ensemble output into the real world decision-making structure we use with all our reconstructions. Interestingly, the results are quite similar to verification significance results based on small-lag AR structures in the target series itself, the general way this issue is approached in climatology. Peace, Gene From: Wahl, Eugene R Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:02 AM To: 'Caspar Ammann'; mann@psu.edu Cc: Malcolm Hughes; Keith Briffa Subject: RE: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/03128/EGU2007-J-03128.pdf?PHPSESSID=e Hi all: I think Caspar's on the money here. The statisticians have a point in that we are really sampling from noisy proxies that themselves are sampling from one of many possible realizations of climate for a given set of forcings (thinking of model ensembles, e.g., all with slightly perturbed initial conditions). However, we in the paleoclimate part of geophysics (and other disciplines that use similar or identical methods, such as econometrics) have clearly recognized the need to separate "wheat from chaff" in forecasting/hindcasting models, and thus the calibration and verification exercises we do. So, it seems to me (at least on a first pass) that there is "truth" in both perspectives on the problem. It would be interesting to explore what our validity screening procedures are in fact doing from a purely mathematical theoretical standpoint...what is the effect of the truncation of possibilities that our validation procedures entail in the underlying geometries we are examining? That could be one way to bridge the difference between the statistical and geophysical perspectives Caspar identifies. [Let me know if you think I've got something incorrect in this Q.] Happy spring to all. Even in Alfred winter is finally breaking! Peace, Gene From: Caspar Ammann [mailto:ammann@ucar.edu] Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:19 PM To: mann@psu.edu Cc: Malcolm Hughes; Keith Briffa; Wahl, Eugene R Subject: Re: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/03128/EGU2007-J-03128.pdf?PHPSESSID=e Malcolm and Mike, I wouldn't read too much into this. I believe that all we are looking at is the difference between a statisticians approach and us in geophysics. The statisticians like to simulate many ensembles. I had the same discussions with our guys at NCAR. The tendency for them is to include all possible reconstructions and then describe the distributions. Our approach has been to throw away reconstructions that don't make sense or that don't pass verification. So its more philosophical than anything else. Though Mike might be right in the sense that the choices can lead some of these approaches astray. We had this with regard to the selections of uncertainty, what is actually independent uncertainty. There a good and strong check on reality is necessary. So we shall see in Vienna ... Caspar On Mar 30, 2008, at 8:32 PM, Michael Mann wrote: Malcolm, in short, this looks like nonsense. there is nothing magic about 'Bayesian' methods. Many of the methods we use can easily be recast as Bayesian approaches, the critical question comes down to what the "prior" is. For example, in RegEM, the prior is the first 'guess' in the iterative expectation-maximization algorithm. Of course, if the final result is sensitive to that choice, one becomes a bit worried, the pitfall indeed of many a Bayesian approach. mike Caspar Ammann wrote: Malcolm, are you referring to this? [1]http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/03128/EGU2007-J-03128.pdf?PHPSESSID=e 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 -- 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 Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [5]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 2595. 2008-04-01 09:58:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones, Phil" , "Ryall, Derrick" , "McCarthy, Mark" , "Kennedy, John" date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:58:25 +0100 from: David Parker subject: Re: Fw: Re: English improvements to your paper to: liqx@cma.gov.cn Dear Dr Li You are welcome to visit the Met Office Hadley Centre during your visit to Norwich. I understand that you are co-author of a paper submitted to Journal of Climate led by Phil Jones on urban influences on China's temperatures and this subject is of considerable interest to us. In particular, there seem to be two streams of papers, one stream claiming much more urban influence than the other. A new paper, just published by G. Ren et al. in J Climate, claims quite a lot of urban influence in North China; it is attached and I see it is not get referenced in Jones et al. Much of the sampling-error work has been developed by Phil Jones and I expect you will build on that while in Norwich. I have copied this to Mark McCarthy who is in our urban climate impacts team. John Kennedy works on global climate monitoring and will have some interest too. Please let Phil Jones and me know in due course when your visit is likely to be; also whether you will visit us alone or with colleagues. Note that in the United Kingdom we often take vacations in the second half of July and in August. Before that, Phil Jones and I are away at a meeting in Geneva 21-25 April and I am away at other meetings in the first half of May. We will need to know your passport number, date and place of birth, also the same details for any accompanying colleagues. You could fax us the page of your passport(s) that shows these. Regards David Parker On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 09:06 +0800, liqx@cma.gov.cn wrote: > Dear Dr. David Parker, > > I am Qingxiang Li,a scientist from China Meteorological Administration. I am talking with Phil on building the regional average (for mainland China) temperature/precipitation series and the > sampling error estimating. Phil can provide me an invitation letter and he recommende me visiting Hadley Centre as well on this topic when I was in Norwich and he want to check if MOHC can have me for a visit in Exeter. > I emailed John Kennedy but received no response, so I am writing you to ask for help. Would you mind telling me your opinions? > > Thank you very much. > > Best regards > > Qingxiang Li > Senor engineer > Deputy dirrector > Division of Operation, Science and Technology > National Meteorological Information Center > China Meteorological Administration > 46. Zhongguancun South Avennue, Beijing, China, 100081 > > > -- 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 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ren_etal_JClimate200803.pdf" 1023. 2008-04-01 15:25:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Apr 1 15:25:08 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: "missing" values in CRU TS to: "Ian Harris" Hi Harry, I'm currently struggling with how to distinguish between actual values in CRU TS 3.0 and values that have reverted towards climatology due to the absence of nearby observations. I found the cru_ts...tmp.stn.nc (and also the ...tmp.cstn.nc) files on /cru/cruts, which are proving useful. Similar .stn. files for DTR and PRE (and for VAP when available) will be useful... can you let me know where they are (and set read permission if necessary). However it would also be good to know the exact algorithm used to grid the anomalies, and how this reversion towards climatology is done (e.g. when do values revert partly towards climatology and when do they revert fully?). Is this algorithm written down anywhere? Cheers Tim 5040. 2008-04-02 17:27:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David J. Thomson" date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:27:59 -0400 (EDT) from: "David J. Thomson" subject: Tree ring or similar data, etc. to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, Our paths don't seem to have crossed lately, so hope all is well with you work is going well, etc. I've been hearing dire things about the UK science funding situation, hope you are surviving. I have two questions, one simple, one maybe not: 1. Did I remember to send you a copy of my article in IEEE Signal processing magazine from last July with the "Nile" example? I recall you spluttering about "long memory" processes at some point, so did an explicit test for it. No ``fractionally integrated brownian motion'', Hurst exponents, etc., but lots of solar and the 18.6-year Lunar signal. 2. One of my grad students is wondering where he can find good tree-ring data at annual resolution from Canadian/US border and prairie region. He has some lake cores from Minnesota over to Alberta, and is looking for accurately dated, annual data from about 1100 AD (or earlier) to present to check his time sacales against. Any data, advice, pointers, etc welcome. The data he has is from varved sediments, there seem to be some odd solar effects, and he should check his time scale against some well-dated series. Term is almost over, last class tomorrow, then exams to mark. Cheers David Thomson 720. 2008-04-03 02:12:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: eystein.jansen@geo.uib.no, jto@u.arizona.edu, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 02:12:59 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Fwd: Questions re. IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 CONFIDENTIAL to: "Keith Briffa" Keith, A few thoughts. I’d liaise with John about responses, as differences on some issues will be picked up. The meeting here is going well. Hotel location good, but food not that great. It is hot and very humid. Some thoughts on how to respond Q1. Check with Susan. I think the answer ought to be No. Q2. Again ought to be No. Q3. I presume you made it, as that is what the paper (yours) did. Q4. Impossible to say who wrote what bit of text. Q5. The CLAs and LAs used their judgement. If it was like Ch 3, the text changes and responses were done somewhat independently – certainly at different times. They certainly had different return deadlines. Q6. Could say your expertise allowed you to see more drafts than any skeptic. Probably not worth giving a response to this question. People shouldn’t be commenting on issues in paper they were reviewing. Q7. These panels weren’t set up to adjudicate – like a jury. I’d ignore anything that refers to oaths. Some of Holland’s earlier questions should have been posed to those involved in Wegman. You could say you didn’t refer to Wegman as IPCC is an assessment and not a review. Again saying this might not help, but a general comment that IPCC is not a review, but an assessment would be useful. I would also point your qualifications versus M&M, but maybe this won’t help. I have a new paper from Mike he gave me yesterday. It is in press in PNAS and he thinks you reviewed or Tim did. I’ve not looked at in much detail, but it looks pretty comprehensive. Mike – as you would expect – thinks it is good, and answers everything. Q8. No it doesn’t. Remind Holland of all the other series – not just Mann. This should probably be your main point in the reply. Q9. This would take you ages to put together. Ignore this email. Q10. No. Worth saying the time investment it took and the time you had to work late and weekends – affecting other aspects of teaching/research. Your time wasn’t paid for. UEA paid you as normally. Cheers Phil > Hi Peck Eystein John (and Phil as Head of CRU) > just to keep you in the loop, I have received the attached letter . > I am not asking for any > input as regards a response -which I shall keep brief - when I get > round to it. Just thought > it appropriate to let you know what was happening. I will forward my > response in due course. > Cheers > Keith > >>From: "David Holland" >>To: "Keith Briffa" >>Cc: "Nigel Lawson" , >> "Tim Boswell" >>Subject: Questions re. IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 >>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:24:11 +0100 >>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 >>X-Canit-CHI2: 0.43 >>X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0091 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN) >>X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_HTML_MOSTLY >>X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from >>UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) >>X-Canit-Stats-ID: 175908 - 257c56a64421 >>X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=f >>X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=n >>X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >>https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=175908&m=257c56a64421&c=s >>X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >>X-UEA-Spam-Score: 2.5 >>X-UEA-Spam-Level: ++ >>X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO >> >> > > -- > 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/ 2953. 2008-04-07 10:37:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Apr 7 10:37:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures to: "Ian Strangeways" Ian, It is quite easy to find a limited number of stations that are not urban. This was done in the first paper attached in 1994. The reason this works is shown in the second paper in 1997. It all works because there are limited number of spatial degrees of freedom. I've found the latter is a very difficult concept for people to grasp. There are less than 100 spatial degrees of freedom for the land areas at the monthly average timescale - if you're calculating a global average. There are obviously more spatial degrees of freedom at the daily timescale and many more if you were dealing with precipitation. It all revolves around the statistic we call r-bar. As I've already said, what matters with urbanization, is any urban-related warming trend. UHI doesn't matter. Cheers Phil At 13:06 28/03/2008, you wrote: Phil Just received the annotated copy of Chapter 4. Many thanks for returning it promptly. I have not looked in detail yet but after a first reading I agree with most of what you say and make the following quick comments: I didn't express the point about David Parker's paper very well I agree. Thanks for pointing out the poor wording. I didn't intend to change the sense of it. I just expressed it carelessly. I expected most comment to be about the rural v urban sites and will read very carefully all the points you've made on this and reword accordingly. If there are no rural sites in China you can't really use China to make your point. I'm surprised you say that you consider air over the oceans to be rural. I'd call it marine, maritime or oceanic. Rural to me means countryside with plants and solid ground. How about measurements made in the middle of large lakes? If you look just at the raw, unadjusted, air temperature data from isolated small islands and from National Parks, that you know for sure have not changed, what do you find? Have you done separate analyses of such sites over the 20th century?. That would be interesting to see. I am always a bit unhappy about lumping everything together; it hides the detail. Have you done anything along such lines? The reason I use the IH/CEH site is that it is one I've known for a long time. I agree it is not in the middle of Wallingford - that was a separate matter regarding the definition of urban. I also agree that its data are not put out on the GTS, but it is Met Office inspected. I agree also that it is changes that matter. I will make sure that this point comes across more clearly. I am perfectly happy with this. You may well be right that it might be impossible to get countries to agree about anything new. Some way round this would need to be found. I will address this matter in the last chapter. When I've done the other chapters that you said you'd be interested to see. I'll send you copies. I greatly appreciate the time you've taken over this. I will make sure I do not misrepresent the facts. Ian -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 18 March 2008 09:58 To: Ian Strangeways Subject: RE: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures Ian, Arrived today ! Phil At 19:19 17/03/2008, you wrote: >Phil > >Chapter 4 was posted today, Monday. > >Ian > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 13 March 2008 17:27 >To: Ian Strangeways >Cc: Matt Lloyd >Subject: Re: Book: Measuring Global Temperatures > > > Ian, > Of the 4 you've done so far, the best to look through would > be number 4 on Measuring land surface air temperatures. I say > this as I presume this will look into homogeneity aspects. > > Of the others 7-9 are the ones I'd like to see. I hope you can > persuade Chris at MOHC to look at 5 and 6. > > So send 4. I can print it out here. > > Travelling a bit soon. What I'll likely do is take it and then post a > hand-annotated copy back. Hope this OK. I should be able to > get #4 back to the week of April 6-10. Need a postal address > at some point. > > David Parker would be good for #3, if you've not already done that. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 10:42 13/03/2008, Ian Strangeways wrote: > >Dear Phil > > > >I have now written the first drafts of chapters > >1 to 4 of my book 'Measuring Global Temperatures' > > > >1 The balance of energy > >2 Thermometry > >3 Screens, stands and shelters > >4 Measuring land surface air temperatures > > > >Chapter 5 is nearly completed (As you know, I am > >awaiting more details of the new small drifting buoys) > > > >5 Measuring sea surface temperatures > > > >You said you would be interested to take a look > >at what I wrote and I am happy to send you > >copies. However, I imagine you will not have > >time to read everything, so if you would like to > >suggest which of the above you would like to > >see, I will send you copies. Should you want to look at them all, that is >OK. > > > >It may be that you would rather wait until all > >chapters are completed. Or you might just like > >to see chapters which I have not written yet. The remaining chapters are: > > > >6 Ocean temperature profiles (Argo) > >7 Global surface instrument networks (GCOS, etc) > >8 From point measurements to global means > >9 Temperature changes since 1950 > >10 Future measurements > > > >Just one thing - I'd appreciate a fairy quick > >response to what you read so as not to have > >these chapters hanging around unfinished for too > >long. I want to get them out of the way as soon as possible. > > > >If necessary I could come to Norwich, but if it > >can be done by email, so much the better. > > > >Look forward to hearing from you. > > > >Best wishes > > > >Ian > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 234. 2008-04-07 18:53:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "Alexia Massacand" , , , , "Howard Diamond" , "Tom Peterson" , , "Alexander Karpov" , "Avinash Tyagi" , "Buruhani Nyenzi" , "Don Hinsman" , "Edgard Cabrera" , "Geir Braathen" , "GCOSJPO" , "Gilles Sommeria" , "H Kontongomde" , "Leslie Malone" , "Mohan Abayasekara" , "Rupa Kumar Kolli" , "Stephan Bojinski" , "Stefanie Lorenz" , "Vladimir Ryabinin" , "Venkataramaiah Satyan" , "Wolfgang Grabs" date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:53:33 +0200 from: "Stephan Bojinski" subject: AOPC-XIV: Message from the Chair to: , , , , "Fuchs Tobias" , , "Richard Thigpen" , , "Raino Heino" , , "Michel Verstraete" , "David Parker" , "Peter Thorne" , , , "Ed Harrison" , , , "Mitch Goldberg" , , "Phil Jones" , "David Goodrich" , "Etienne Charpentier" , "Eduard Sarukhanian" , "Jerome Lafeuille" , "Len Barrie" , "Miroslav Ondras" , "Omar Baddour" , "William Westermeyer" Dear AOPC Members and Invitees, The AOPC Chair Adrian Simmons and the Secretariat would like to encourage you to include, in your presentation to AOPC-XIV, a brief summary on the status of any action in the GCOS Implementation Plan relevant to your topic. Please consult the list of AOPC-related actions in the GCOS Implementation Plan in attached document 38. The GCOS Implementation Plan, completed in 2004, provides the strategic guideline for the global observing system for climate. Five years on, assessing progress of the Actions proposed in the Plan is timely and has been requested by the UNFCCC. (The full Plan is available at: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-92_GIP.pdf ) Also, please have a look at Adrian Simmons' report to the session (attached as doc 2 and 2a) and respond to relevant action items from last year's AOPC session. Let us remind you to keep your presentations as concise as possible (15 minutes, as a general rule), to allow for sufficient discussion time during the session. The AOPC-XIV website (http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/index.php?name=aopcXIV) is still being regularly updated with documents as they are submitted. Please provide relevant documents for your agenda items as soon as possible. On Tuesday evening (22/4), we are planning a group dinner at CafĂ© du Soleil (the same location as last year, since everyone appreciated it so much!). You will be able to choose your own menu, and we'll add the whole cost together and divide by the number of participants (about 50-55 CHF each). We'll finalize a list on Monday, but feel free to advise if you would like to join before then. Best regards Stephan _________________________________ Dr Stephan Bojinski Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) c/o World Meteorological Organization 7bis, Avenue de la Paix; 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland Email: SBojinski@wmo.int Phone: +41 22 730 8150 Web: http://gcos.wmo.int Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2_ReportChair.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\2a_AOPC-XIII_ActionsReview.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\38_AOPC_GIP_Actions.pdf" 2089. 2008-04-07 19:25:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:25:06 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2008JD009916 (Editor - Yinon Rudich): Decision Letter to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 4417 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Manuscript Number: 2008JD009916 Manuscript Title: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China Dear Dr. Jones: Attached below please find 2 reviews on your above-referenced paper. The two Reviewers raised questions and made suggestions for important revisions. Especially Reviewer #2 questions some of the data used and Reviewer #1 suggests to include analysis from more rural sites. Please consider the Reviewer reports carefully, make the necessary changes in your manuscript and respond to me, explaining how you have addressed these comments (also in the general parts of teh reviews). In your Response to Reviewer letter, please include a statement confirming that all authors listed on the manuscript concur with submission in its revised form. The due date for your revised paper is May 5, 2008. If you will be unable to submit a revised manuscript by May 5, 2008, please notify my office and arrange for an extension (maximum two weeks). If we do not hear from you by the revision due date, your manuscript will be considered as withdrawn. When you are ready to submit your revision, please use the link below. (NOTE: The link above automatically submits your login name and password. If you wish to share this link with co-authors or colleagues, please be aware that they will have access to your entire account for this journal.) Sincerely, Yinon Rudich Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres -----------Important JGR-Atmospheres Information------------------------------ Submission, Review and Publication Stages Chart Text Preparation and Formatting Manuscript Preparation Acceptable Electronic File Formats Editorial Style Guide for Authors Auxiliary Materials (Electronic Supplements) Artwork Preparation Guidelines for Preparing Graphics Files Figure FAQ Prices for Color in AGU Journals AGU Copyright Transfer Form Manuscript Status Tool (for manuscripts recently accepted) If you need assistance with file formats and/or color charges please e-mail jgr-atmospheres@agu.org and quote your manuscript number. If you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to download the forms, it is available, free, on the internet at: http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reviewer Comments Reviewer #1 Evaluations: Assessment: Category 3 Ranking: Good Reviewer #2 Evaluations: Assessment: Category 2 Ranking: Excellent Reviewer #2 (Comments): This is a pretty straight forward paper that needs little work for publication. I think the analysis shows the points about the urban heat island and trends very well. Following are just a few suggestions. First, although I know what the paper is about I feel the exact purpose needs to be made clearer in the Introduction. It seems a little muddled in the second paragraph where it says the emphasis is China, but section 2 is about European examples. More correctly it should say something like "we set the stage with two European examples, then follow with an analysis of China". Also, although there is discussion about rapid growth in China, I suspect there is another reason China is analyzed. Minor comments. 1. Easterling et al. 1996 in J. of Climate also showed that the effects of homogeneity adjustments diminish as the size of the area being analyzed increases. 2. The authors may want to include a reference to "solar dimming" at the end of section 3.0 where they discuss air pollution effects. 3. Question: since surface air temperature is assimilated into ERA40 is an urban influence de facto included? If so, how is this controlled for in the analysis, or is this effect not detectable in ERA40? 4. Figure 1, what happened at the LWC in the early to late 1990s? The difference between LWC and St. James Park is almost non-existent during that period. 5. Figure 8, any explanation for the difference between the SST temps and Land-box temps from CRU in the 1920s-1940s? This looks like it impacts the trends, giving the SSTs more of a trend than the CRU box for the 1900-present period. Also, no trends are calculated for this period, all start in 1951 or later so why plot the data back to 1900? Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\1_reviewer_attachment_1_1202866764.pdf" 4932. 2008-04-09 12:48:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Kennedy , philip.brohan@metoffice.gov.uk, david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk date: Wed Apr 9 12:48:40 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: problem with trends in Europe in HadCRUT3 to: Geert Jan van Oldenborgh Geert Jan, This stems from the way we combine the land/ocean datasets around coastlines. In HadCRUT2 we did it according to the area of land/ocean, but not letting one dominate, so if land or ocean were < 25% it was made at least 25%, with the other changed accordingly. In HadCRUT3 we did it according to the errors of estimation (see the Borhan et al paper). This tends to bias the coastal areas to the SSTs as their errors of estimation are smaller. This results from the way we deal with errors in the land and ocean components. Probably neither of these is right all the time, but we will reconsider this when we think about HadCRUT4 - which is someway off! We might be doing something sooner if some improvements to HadSST2 (incorporating new SST data from WW1 and WW2) get completed soon. Doing what you've done is essentially going back to what was done in the earlier version. Combination around coasts has always been a problem. Cheers Phil Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:27:46 +0200 From: Geert Jan van Oldenborgh Organization: KNMI User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 To: Phil Jones Subject: problem with trends in Europe in HadCRUT3 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2008 08:27:46.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[971995D0:01C89A1B] X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 597818, limit: 153600) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Dear Phil, as you may know I am busy verifying climate models on the observed trend in Europe so far. We submitted a GRL about this a few weeks ago. When cross-checking against station data I found a very curious problem in the HadCRUT3 daatset that we used to represent the real world. In summer, in northern Europe, the trends in HadCRUT3 grid boxes are much higher than the station data (and CRUTEM3) indicate, whereas in southern Europe the reverse happens. Looking at the CRUTEM3 and HadSST2 trends I found large positive trends in HadSST2 in grid boxes that are >90% land, e.g., western France (0-5E, 45-50N) and northern Germany (10-15E, 50-55N). Apparently these get a similar or larger weight to the CRUTEM3 data in the same grid box, and thus in HadCRUT3 these grid boxes have large positive trends, which are due to a few SST observations near the beach and down-weigh the large amount of good station data of CRUTEM3. The opposite happens along teh Mediterranean coasts. A weird trend in winter in Finland (20-25E, 60-65N) is also due to this effect. As a stop-gap measure I defined my own merged dataset by weighing CRUTEM3 and HadSST2 by the fraction of the grid box covered by land and sea respectively (derived from CRU TS 2.1, so overestimating land a bit). I used this to redo all the plots in the GRL, and will substitute them when I revise it. Fortunately, the main conclusions are not affected. The problem is illustrated in the attached page from my log book, in which I show trends in HadCRUT3 (left), CRUTEM3, HadSST2 and my home-brewn CRUTEM3+HadSST2 combination (right column). The first row shows the trend in the annual mean, next DJF, MAM, JJA and SON on the bottom row. I can understand that you give a disproportional weight to island stations to characterize SST around it, but the opposite seems to give unphysical results in areas with a convoluted coast line. If anyone is working on the weighing for HadCRUT4 this information may be of interest. Greetings from sunny & chilly Holland, Geert Jan Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1536. 2008-04-09 13:27:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace , John Kennedy date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:27:02 +0100 from: David Thompson subject: Re: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939A to: Phil Jones Phil, I know what you mean about liaising over a press release. It's occurred to me the work might be misused by the skeptics. My knee-jerk reaction was to have nothing to do with the press on this. I figured it would be easy to be quoted out of context, and I thought I'd let the work speak for itself. I also don't think the fringe skeptics are worth an ounce of my time. But ... maybe that's too strong of a reaction. I'm certainly open to crafting a few paragraphs which we all agree on. And I'm happy to entrain other folks in the release. I don't know if Nature are doing a news and views item. If they are, I'll suggest they contact, say, Dick Reynolds and maybe Susan. -Dave On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, An email came last night to update my profile with Nature, so I expected this. Congratulations again! Once we have the proofs, we'll need to liaise over a press release. We need to be very careful what we say. When we do these with the global T figures the UEA and Met Office press offices work together. I reckon we should use this process again - and involve David Parker, Chris Folland and possibly John Mitchell in the drafting of this. The press release will need to briefly mention the implications of this for the long-term trend and also the changes that will be made to the SSTs (not just for 1945-60) but also potentially to the recent few years from the buoy dominance now. Do you know Dave if Nature are doing a news and views item on the paper? If they aren't it would be good to try and get them to do one and have Dick Reynolds do it. Dick could then discuss the implications of both these points. In both of the above, I'm trying to head off the obvious skeptic backlash who'll say we can't measure T properly, so why should we believe the rest of the global T data. I know all that you've done is kosher and we learn of problems through varied analyses, but the skeptics won't see it this way - and they'll try and rake up as much as they can. As for the proofs I'll be away the week before you come to Norwich (so away April 21-25). Also away May 12-16. I should be in email contact these week though. I don't think we'd gain much with a cover picture. The paper isn't really about volcanoes. I wouldn't bother with the front cover. The attached may be useful when you're talking about this. This just shows that the US destroyed most of their WW2 logs. I got this from Scott Woodruff in Boulder. The name of the person who signed this is cropped. Scott did that to protect the guilty! The person is still alive - I'm told! Cheers Phil At 11:31 09/04/2008, David Thompson wrote: Yeehaw. Nature made a decision very quickly (the editor actually emailed to say the manuscript would be accepted within about 2 hours of my submitting the revised version). Two quick questions: 1. I think we should all have a chance to review the page proofs ... we won't be able to make major changes, but I think it's important everyone is comfortable with every word. I imagine I'll receive the proofs within the next few weeks. Does anyone have any extended travel plans during that period? 2. They've asked if I'd like to submit a possible cover image. I imagine a version of our Fig 2 (with the volcanos labeled on the figure) would be a strong candidate. But I'm not sure we'll gain much from being on the cover. And I don't want to give the impression we're grandstanding. What do you think? -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: [1]h.anthony@nature.com Date: April 9, 2008 11:06:14 AM BDT To: [2]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939A 9th April 2008 Dear Professor Thompson We are delighted to accept your manuscript "A large discontinuity in the mid 20th century in observed global-mean surface temperature" in Nature. Thank you for choosing to publish your interesting work with us. We will edit your manuscript to ensure that it is intelligible to our wide readership and that it conforms with house style. See [3]www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html#a10 for an explanation of this process. We look particularly carefully at the titles of all papers to ensure that they are relatively brief and that indexing is accurate. Our subeditors are likely to send you the edited text for your approval before it is typeset. You will subsequently receive a PDF proof of the layout, including the figures. When you receive your proof, we suggest you send it to your co-authors for them to check, but please coordinate these changes among the co-authors so that only one author communicates with Nature and only one set of corrections is sent. The corresponding (or other single designated) author is responsible on behalf of all co-authors for the accuracy of all content, including spelling of names and current affiliations of all your coauthors, so please ensure t hese are checked carefully. If one of your co-authors or art staff at your institution would be the most appropriate person to deal with artwork format matters, please email [4]art@nature.com now with the relevant details (including manuscript number and corresponding author's name). Acceptance of your manuscript is conditional on all authors' agreement with our publication policies (see [5]www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/index.html). In particular, your manuscript must not be published elsewhere and there must be no announcement of this work to any media outlet until the publication date (the day on which it is uploaded onto our web site). We will inform you by email as soon as your manuscript is scheduled for publication, which will be after we have received your proof corrections. Advice about media relations is available from Nature's press office at [6]press@nature.com. We welcome the submission of potential cover material related to your manuscript; suggestions should be sent to Nature Editorial production department in London, as hard copies and as electronic files on a separate disk to the main paper (please include a caption of no more than 40 words: images should be 300 dpi at 210 x 297 mm in either TIFF or JPEG format). All material should be labelled with your name and manuscript reference number. We cannot promise that your cover suggestion will be used, as competition is intense. If you have not already done so, we invite you to upload the step-by-step protocols used in this manuscript to the Protocols Network, part of our on-line web resource, natureprotocols.com. If you complete the upload by the time you receive your manuscript proofs, we can insert links in your article that lead directly to the protocol details. Your protocol will be made freely available upon publication of your paper. By participating, you are enabling researchers to more readily reproduce or adapt the methodology you use. Natureprotocols.com is fully searchable, providing your protocols and paper with increased utility and visibility. Please submit your protocol to [7]http://protocols.nature.com/manuscripts. After entering your nature.com username and password you will need to enter your manuscript number (2008-01-00939A). Further information can be found at [8]www.natureprotocols.com. An online order form for reprints of your paper is available at [9]www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/final/forms.html. All co-authors, authors' institutions and authors' funding agencies can order reprints using the form appropriate to their geographical region. To obtain the special author reprint rate, orders must be made within 3 weeks of the publication date. After that, reprints are charged at the normal (commercial) rate. If you, your coauthors or your institutions wish to order up to 10 copies of the issue of Nature in which your article is published, please order them via your reprint order form. With kind regards Helen Anthony On behalf of Karl Ziemelis Physical Sciences Editor, Nature Nature's author and policy information sites are at [10]www.nature.com/nature/submit/. * NPG's author and referees' website ([11] www.nature.com/authors) contains information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [12]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [13]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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [14]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 [15]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 5018. 2008-04-09 13:35:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Kennedy, John" date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:35:16 +0100 from: David Parker subject: Re: Fwd: problem with trends in Europe in HadCRUT3 to: "Jones, Phil" Phil The same problem made our NHem Jan 2008 blended anomaly lower than both the land-only and the SST-only! It is unlikely to cause problems on large scales on longer timescales e.g. annual. David On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 12:48 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > Geert Jan, > This stems from the way we combine the land/ocean datasets > around coastlines. > In HadCRUT2 we did it according to the area of land/ocean, but not > letting one > dominate, so if land or ocean were < 25% it was made at least 25%, with > the other changed accordingly. > In HadCRUT3 we did it according to the errors of estimation (see the > Borhan et al paper). This tends to bias the coastal areas to the > SSTs as their > errors of estimation are smaller. This results from the way we deal with > errors in the land and ocean components. > > Probably neither of these is right all the time, but we will > reconsider this > when we think about HadCRUT4 - which is someway off! We might be doing > something sooner if some improvements to HadSST2 (incorporating new > SST data from WW1 and WW2) get completed soon. > > Doing what you've done is essentially going back to what was done in > the earlier version. Combination around coasts has always been a problem. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > >Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:27:46 +0200 > >From: Geert Jan van Oldenborgh > >Organization: KNMI > >User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.13) > >Gecko/20080313 SeaMonkey/1.1.9 > >To: Phil Jones > >Subject: problem with trends in Europe in HadCRUT3 > >X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Apr 2008 08:27:46.0989 (UTC) > >FILETIME=[971995D0:01C89A1B] > >X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 597818, limit: 153600) > >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from > >UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) > >X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available > >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 > >X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 > >X-UEA-Spam-Level: / > >X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO > > > >Dear Phil, > > > >as you may know I am busy verifying climate models on the observed > >trend in Europe so far. We submitted a GRL about this a few weeks > >ago. When cross-checking against station data I found a very > >curious problem in the HadCRUT3 daatset that we used to represent > >the real world. In summer, in northern Europe, the trends in > >HadCRUT3 grid boxes are much higher than the station data (and > >CRUTEM3) indicate, whereas in southern Europe the reverse happens. > > > >Looking at the CRUTEM3 and HadSST2 trends I found large positive > >trends in HadSST2 in grid boxes that are >90% land, e.g., western > >France (0-5E, 45-50N) and northern Germany (10-15E, > >50-55N). Apparently these get a similar or larger weight to the > >CRUTEM3 data in the same grid box, and thus in HadCRUT3 these grid > >boxes have large positive trends, which are due to a few SST > >observations near the beach and down-weigh the large amount of good > >station data of CRUTEM3. The opposite happens along teh > >Mediterranean coasts. A weird trend in winter in Finland (20-25E, > >60-65N) is also due to this effect. > > > >As a stop-gap measure I defined my own merged dataset by weighing > >CRUTEM3 and HadSST2 by the fraction of the grid box covered by land > >and sea respectively (derived from CRU TS 2.1, so overestimating > >land a bit). I used this to redo all the plots in the GRL, and will > >substitute them when I revise it. Fortunately, the main conclusions > >are not affected. > > > >The problem is illustrated in the attached page from my log book, in > >which I show trends in HadCRUT3 (left), CRUTEM3, HadSST2 and my > >home-brewn CRUTEM3+HadSST2 combination (right column). The first > >row shows the trend in the annual mean, next DJF, MAM, JJA and SON > >on the bottom row. > > > >I can understand that you give a disproportional weight to island > >stations to characterize SST around it, but the opposite seems to > >give unphysical results in areas with a convoluted coast line. If > >anyone is working on the weighing for HadCRUT4 this information may > >be of interest. > > > >Greetings from sunny & chilly Holland, > > > > Geert Jan > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 3970. 2008-04-09 13:40:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace , John Kennedy date: Wed Apr 9 13:40:03 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939A to: David Thompson Dave, Agree on the skeptics. Unfortunately a few know some people who should know better. Susan knows what some have been doing over the past few weeks. Some are also making a lot out of the current La Nina cooling in the global record. Press Release essential therefore. Dick Reynolds would be great for a news/views item. He could also then get called by the press in the US. If you can talk to Nature into this we can involve him in the release. Cheers Phil At 13:27 09/04/2008, David Thompson wrote: Phil, I know what you mean about liaising over a press release. It's occurred to me the work might be misused by the skeptics. My knee-jerk reaction was to have nothing to do with the press on this. I figured it would be easy to be quoted out of context, and I thought I'd let the work speak for itself. I also don't think the fringe skeptics are worth an ounce of my time. But ... maybe that's too strong of a reaction. I'm certainly open to crafting a few paragraphs which we all agree on. And I'm happy to entrain other folks in the release. I don't know if Nature are doing a news and views item. If they are, I'll suggest they contact, say, Dick Reynolds and maybe Susan. -Dave On Apr 9, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, An email came last night to update my profile with Nature, so I expected this. Congratulations again! Once we have the proofs, we'll need to liaise over a press release. We need to be very careful what we say. When we do these with the global T figures the UEA and Met Office press offices work together. I reckon we should use this process again - and involve David Parker, Chris Folland and possibly John Mitchell in the drafting of this. The press release will need to briefly mention the implications of this for the long-term trend and also the changes that will be made to the SSTs (not just for 1945-60) but also potentially to the recent few years from the buoy dominance now. Do you know Dave if Nature are doing a news and views item on the paper? If they aren't it would be good to try and get them to do one and have Dick Reynolds do it. Dick could then discuss the implications of both these points. In both of the above, I'm trying to head off the obvious skeptic backlash who'll say we can't measure T properly, so why should we believe the rest of the global T data. I know all that you've done is kosher and we learn of problems through varied analyses, but the skeptics won't see it this way - and they'll try and rake up as much as they can. As for the proofs I'll be away the week before you come to Norwich (so away April 21-25). Also away May 12-16. I should be in email contact these week though. I don't think we'd gain much with a cover picture. The paper isn't really about volcanoes. I wouldn't bother with the front cover. The attached may be useful when you're talking about this. This just shows that the US destroyed most of their WW2 logs. I got this from Scott Woodruff in Boulder. The name of the person who signed this is cropped. Scott did that to protect the guilty! The person is still alive - I'm told! Cheers Phil At 11:31 09/04/2008, David Thompson wrote: Yeehaw. Nature made a decision very quickly (the editor actually emailed to say the manuscript would be accepted within about 2 hours of my submitting the revised version). Two quick questions: 1. I think we should all have a chance to review the page proofs ... we won't be able to make major changes, but I think it's important everyone is comfortable with every word. I imagine I'll receive the proofs within the next few weeks. Does anyone have any extended travel plans during that period? 2. They've asked if I'd like to submit a possible cover image. I imagine a version of our Fig 2 (with the volcanos labeled on the figure) would be a strong candidate. But I'm not sure we'll gain much from being on the cover. And I don't want to give the impression we're grandstanding. What do you think? -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: [1]h.anthony@nature.com Date: April 9, 2008 11:06:14 AM BDT To: [2]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Subject: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-01-00939A 9th April 2008 Dear Professor Thompson We are delighted to accept your manuscript "A large discontinuity in the mid 20th century in observed global-mean surface temperature" in Nature. Thank you for choosing to publish your interesting work with us. We will edit your manuscript to ensure that it is intelligible to our wide readership and that it conforms with house style. See [3]www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/index.html#a10 for an explanation of this process. We look particularly carefully at the titles of all papers to ensure that they are relatively brief and that indexing is accurate. Our subeditors are likely to send you the edited text for your approval before it is typeset. You will subsequently receive a PDF proof of the layout, including the figures. When you receive your proof, we suggest you send it to your co-authors for them to check, but please coordinate these changes among the co-authors so that only one author communicates with Nature and only one set of corrections is sent. The corresponding (or other single designated) author is responsible on behalf of all co-authors for the accuracy of all content, including spelling of names and current affiliations of all your coauthors, so please ensure t hese are checked carefully. If one of your co-authors or art staff at your institution would be the most appropriate person to deal with artwork format matters, please email [4]art@nature.com now with the relevant details (including manuscript number and corresponding author's name). Acceptance of your manuscript is conditional on all authors' agreement with our publication policies (see [5]www.nature.com/nature/authors/policy/index.html). In particular, your manuscript must not be published elsewhere and there must be no announcement of this work to any media outlet until the publication date (the day on which it is uploaded onto our web site). We will inform you by email as soon as your manuscript is scheduled for publication, which will be after we have received your proof corrections. Advice about media relations is available from Nature's press office at [6]press@nature.com. We welcome the submission of potential cover material related to your manuscript; suggestions should be sent to Nature Editorial production department in London, as hard copies and as electronic files on a separate disk to the main paper (please include a caption of no more than 40 words: images should be 300 dpi at 210 x 297 mm in either TIFF or JPEG format). All material should be labelled with your name and manuscript reference number. We cannot promise that your cover suggestion will be used, as competition is intense. If you have not already done so, we invite you to upload the step-by-step protocols used in this manuscript to the Protocols Network, part of our on-line web resource, natureprotocols.com. If you complete the upload by the time you receive your manuscript proofs, we can insert links in your article that lead directly to the protocol details. Your protocol will be made freely available upon publication of your paper. By participating, you are enabling researchers to more readily reproduce or adapt the methodology you use. Natureprotocols.com is fully searchable, providing your protocols and paper with increased utility and visibility. Please submit your protocol to [7]http://protocols.nature.com/manuscripts. After entering your nature.com username and password you will need to enter your manuscript number (2008-01-00939A). Further information can be found at [8]www.natureprotocols.com. An online order form for reprints of your paper is available at [9]www.nature.com/nature/authors/submissions/final/forms.html. All co-authors, authors' institutions and authors' funding agencies can order reprints using the form appropriate to their geographical region. To obtain the special author reprint rate, orders must be made within 3 weeks of the publication date. After that, reprints are charged at the normal (commercial) rate. If you, your coauthors or your institutions wish to order up to 10 copies of the issue of Nature in which your article is published, please order them via your reprint order form. With kind regards Helen Anthony On behalf of Karl Ziemelis Physical Sciences Editor, Nature Nature's author and policy information sites are at [10]www.nature.com/nature/submit/. * NPG's author and referees' website ( [11]www.nature.com/authors) contains information about and links to policies, services and author benefits. See also [12]http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus, our blog for authors, and [13]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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [14]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 [15]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [16]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1769. 2008-04-09 15:07:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:07:04 +0200 from: Thomas Kleinen subject: Re: EGU presentations to: Keith Briffa Hi Tim and Keith, I've slept over it - yesterday I was too tired to actually finish them - and yes, that's basically what I am going to try to do. Not quite sure yet, how exactly, but probably along those line: 1) MOC slowdown high lat warming seems model dependent, doesn't appear in Palaeodata (since we have plenty in summer in Northern Scandinavia, we can definitely say we don't see that warming). If we ignore that warming, mid-latitude Atlantic would cool more than other areas if that was the case. 2) radiative forcing changes definitely are required to obtain right magnitude of cooling 3) negative NAO implies less cooling DJF Greenland / eastern Canada, we have indications that that is the case for that 1680-1710 (one qualitative point Canada, one quantitative Greenland), it therefore "appears likely" that that was the case 4) 1800-1830 can be explained by radiative forcing changes alone. generally desirable: More proxy data, especially winter and lower latitudes. That sounds a lot better to me, what do you think? Cheers, Thomas On Wednesday 09 April 2008, you wrote: > Hi Thomas > sorry was away in London yesterday - I agree - and also that this has > a rather disappointing negativity - s perhaps dress up with more > positive indication or emphasis on what would be required in ideal > situation ? cheers > Keith > > At 16:22 08/04/2008, you wrote: > >Hi Tim and Keith, > > > >I'm nearly done with my presentations, but I thought I should do a > >quick check > >with you... > > > >My basic message will be that we don't have enough data to prove or > > disprove any of the hypotheses, and that especially winter proxy data > > would be required to be able to do that. > > > >Is that all right with you? > > > >In Phil's session I'll give an overview over what we've done in the > > project, show the results obtained in the different experiments and then > > show (palaeo) data coverage for the timeframe in question. > > > >In the other session (that's the open session on Climatology and > >Palaeoclimatology, I had submitted it to past atmospheric circulation, but > >that session was apparently cancelled and my presentation moved over to > > the open session, I realised that only just now when I looked up the > > session title again) I'm going to focus on the nudging experiments. > > > >Still, the take home message will be the same in both sessions - we need > > more data to actually pin down a mechanism. > > > >So do you have any comments, should I change that slightly, any other > > ideas? > > > >Cheers, > >Thomas > > > >PS: I guess that's a more prominent session for the nudging presentation. > > Ah well, some extra publicity... Still it would be nice to be able to > > present slightly more positive findings. > > -- > 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/ 4012. 2008-04-09 20:46:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: Joel Smith date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:46:03 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: longterm river flow to: Phil Jones Phil, Can you send me any reports or papers on the latest long term riverflow reconstructions you've done. Has any of this been used in the context of future change? In other words, if one just added future projections to present (say the last 50 years), then the results would be different from the case if one added the future to a wider range of "present" based on observed variability over a number of centuries. More specifically, if the change in flow were a reduction of X units, and if there were a time a few hundred years ago when the natural flow was Y less than today, then a combination of an anthropogenic reduction of X and a natural reduction of Y would be doubly bad. So -- big question -- has the UK looked at the combined effect of X *and* Y? Thanks for your help, Tom. 3297. 2008-04-10 06:52:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 06:52:00 -0600 from: "Joel Smith" subject: RE: longterm river flow (2) to: "Phil Jones" , "Tom Wigley" HI Phil Thanks and that's very interesting. We did something similar in Boulder, Colorado. A few years ago the city looked at its vulnerability to a 300 year reconstruction by Connie Woodhouse (then of NOAA, now at the University of Arizona). We combined a new 400+ year reconstruction with GCM output. We derived proxy temperature and precipitation in the reconstruction by matching reconstructed flow years with "nearest neighbors" in the part of the reconstructed flow record that overlaps with observations. We then applied the monthly changes in precipitation and temperature from a wide range of GCM output. In this case the combination is very interesting. Boulder has low vulnerability to the reconstructed flows (with regard to drought). It also has low vulnerability to the imposition of climate change on the historic observed climate record. But, the combination of GCM output and the reconstruction can cause more frequent violations of drought criteria yours, Joel Joel B. Smith Stratus Consulting Inc. P.O. Box 4059 Boulder, CO 80306-4059 USA Tel: 1-303-381-8218 Fax: 1-303-381-8200 jsmith@stratusconsulting.com www.stratusconsulting.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 4/10/2008 2:38 AM To: Tom Wigley Cc: Joel Smith Subject: Re: longterm river flow (2) Tom, The EA work in 2006/7 resulted in 3 EA reports and 3 summaries. I can't find the first referred to in Jones et al 2006 as Cole and Marsh (2005). This one that I don't have is mainly placing recent droughts in a longer context with EWP and other long rainfall and groundwater level series. In this report we took the riverflow reconstructions from the 2006 paper in IJC (for the River Eden nr Carlisle and the River Ouse to Denver Sluice). We used these reconstructions to approximate inflows to reservoirs on the Ouse catchment and in the Lake District (Eden). The relevant Water Authorities then used their resource models with daily inflows to see how their systems responded to flows over the last 200 years. To get daily flows, we had some modern records, so we took monthly daily sequences with roughly the same mean flows as reconstructed at the two gauging stations. As there was between 20-50 years of daily flows, there was some repetition of sequences to cover the 200 years. We then rerun the whole process with several futures from 3 RCM simulations (chosen to be from 3 different driving GCMs (HadCM3, ECHAM4 and Arpege). These changes to rainfall and T were applied to the whole sequence for 200 years, so combining a 'future' with the long historic record which encompassed natural variability. The 'future' precip changes were applied directly to the historic rainfall sequences, For future actual evapotranspiration (required by the statistical rainfall/runoff model) I developed a simple water balance model, based in rainfall and temperature. Modified temperature produced monthly sequences of Thornethwaite PET, which then produced modified AET from the simple water balance model. The Wade et al reports then look at implications for the two Water Authorities. The historic droughts in the 19th century (with modern abstractions) were sometimes worse (particularly on the Ouse) than recent droughts. These didn't get much worse in the future as winter rainfall went up in the RCMs, and the catchment has a long memory. Future droughts got worse in the Lake District as summers got drier and here the river memory was shorter. Should all be described in the reports. We didn't ever write this up - except for the these EA reports which are on the EA web site. No idea how these have been applied in the two Authorities or by the EA. Cheers Phil At 03:46 10/04/2008, Tom Wigley wrote: >Phil, > >Can you send me any reports or papers on the latest >long term riverflow reconstructions you've done. > >Has any of this been used in the context of future change? >In other words, if one just added future projections >to present (say the last 50 years), then the results >would be different from the case if one added the future >to a wider range of "present" based on observed variability >over a number of centuries. > >More specifically, if the change in flow were a reduction >of X units, and if there were a time a few hundred years >ago when the natural flow was Y less than today, then >a combination of an anthropogenic reduction of X and a >natural reduction of Y would be doubly bad. > >So -- big question -- has the UK looked at the combined >effect of X *and* Y? > >Thanks for your help, >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1030. 2008-04-10 11:07:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:07:19 +0800 from: "Zhongwei Yan" subject: Re: Fw: RCUK Science Bridges Awards to: "Phil Jones" Phil, I did not know Ren's paper. Thanks for informing and I'll include it into our Beijing paper. My impression is that the results of urban bias greatly depend on the 'references'. You may infer the difference between Hua et al (2007, TAC) and this paper, for large cities: Hua: the largest UW = 0.12K/dec for winter Tmin over China (little trend for Tmax, smaller trends for other seasons) Ren: 0.16C/dec for annul mean T over N China (the effect in N China may be stronger, but does Hua's result appear too small?) For Beijing, results varied for a dozen of possible reference stations. It's hard to determine a best reference. Re: RCUK - I contacted its office in Beijing. The result was not encouraging. I was told that they prefer NOT to support basic science but something more directly linkable to social applications and innovations in industries. So we'd better forget it. Cheers. ZW 477. 2008-04-10 11:40:47 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Thorsten Kiefer'" , "'Janice Lough'" , "'Jonathan Overpeck'" date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:40:47 +0200 from: "Christian Pfister" subject: AW: important role in proxy uncertainty workshop to: "'Kim Cobb'" , "'Sandy Tudhope'" , , , , , , , Dear all I am ready to write a mini paper of about 2 pages on documentary data. It will account for the state of the art as achieved within the EU Project Millennium. However, due to great time constraints the paper will hardly be ready prior to June 5. I hope for your understanding Christian Pfister Dr. Christian Pfister Professor of Economic, Social and Environmental History. Institute of History Section of Economic, Social and Environmental History (WSU) Erlachstrasse 9a, Room 106 3000 Bern 9/Switzerland Mail adress and secretary (Room B012): Historisches Institut Unitobler 3000 Bern 9 Phone: +41 31 631 83 42 (Mo 13-17, We 8-12, Thu 13-16) Phone Pfister direct: +41 31 631 83 84 Mail: pfister@hist.unibe.ch Visit the WSU homepage http://www.wsu.hist.unibe.ch/ Member of Swiss Climate Research Center NCCR http://www.nccr-climate.unibe.ch/ Visit the homepage of the European Society for Environmental History ESEH http://eseh.org/ BERNHIST ist neu in Digibern verfügbar: http://www.bernhist.ch Visit the Euro-Climhist data-base http://www.euroclimhist.com -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Kim Cobb [mailto:kcobb@gatech.edu] Gesendet: Samstag, 5. April 2008 19:52 An: Sandy Tudhope; k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; fleitman@geo.unibe.ch; steig@ess.washington.edu; wahl@ucar.edu; gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov; david.m.anderson@noaa.gov; khughen@whoi.edu; christian.pfister@hist.unibe.ch Cc: Thorsten Kiefer; Janice Lough; Jonathan Overpeck Betreff: important role in proxy uncertainty workshop Dear Keith, Dominik, Christian, Eric, Eugene, Gavin, Sandy, Peck, Konrad, and David, Because you have each demonstrated your keen ability to collaborate constructively in a meeting setting, our organizing committee has nominated you to lead an important charge for the upcoming meeting in Trieste. Congratulations! ;) This meeting has some very lofty goals, and a very short amount of time in which to achieve them. Hopefully you will agree to distill and frame the contributions from your specific thematic group (trees, lakes, models, databases, etc). Your duties would include collecting input from your group's scientists, and drafting a 2-3 page document ahead of the meeting (see attached). This would form the skeleton of a 1/2 hour talk you would then give at the meeting. There will be no other prepared presentations, so this is hopefully both an honor and an opportunity, as well as a challenge. The mini-papers should be completed by May 23rd or so. Please let us know as soon as possible if you accept your honor, so we can e-mail the broader group about the pre-meeting tasks and the agenda itself. Thank you very much, and I look forward to seeing you all in Trieste! Regards, KIM 2544. 2008-04-11 10:34:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 11 10:34:16 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript to: "Langenberg, Heike" Heike I do not know whether you sent official instructions for returning this review - I can not find a "later" message from you. Attached is my review (and some brief comments by a colleague) . Best wishes Keith At 18:46 14/03/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith, Thanks very much for agreeing to review this paper for us (after Easter will be fine), and for the suggestions for complementary referees. With my next email, I will send a link to our webbased data base. Specifically, do you think the authors' interpretation of their tree-ring data is robust, including the corrections for age and climate variations? If so, do think the main finding regarding continental-scale impacts of sulphur deposition on forest growth is new and important? Of course, similar effects have been found for the regional scale, but the authors argue that such a widespread has not been reported before. I look forward to hearing what you think. Best wishes, Heike ******************************************** Dr Heike Langenberg Chief Editor Nature Geoscience [1]http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 March 2008 15:26 To: Langenberg, Heike Subject: Re: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript NGS-2008-02-00218 Hi Heike yes I am happy to take a look at this one . As for other referees I would suggest John Grace at Edinburgh (University) , or perhaps Malcolm Hughes in Tucson (tree Ring Lab.) . hope a response after Easter will suffice cheers Keith At 14:10 14/03/2008, you wrote: >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_120550382054503" >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) >Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:10:20 -0400 >Message-Id: <49120550382020@rhwww4.nature.com.nature.com> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Dear Professor Briffa > >As you may have heard, we have recently launched Nature Geoscience, >a monthly research journal (please see our website ><[3]http://www.nature.com/ngeo>[4]http://www.nature.com/ngeo for more information). > >A short manuscript has been submitted to Nature Geoscience, which we >were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript >comes from Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger and is entitled "Sulphur >deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal forests in >Eurasia". Its first paragraph is pasted below. > >Would you be able to specifically assess the interpretation of the >tree ring data, as well as the novelty and importance of this >manuscript for us, within about two weeks of receiving the paper? > >If you are unable to help us with this, can you suggest any >alternative referees who would have an appropriate expertise? I >would also be grateful for any thoughts that you might have >regarding other referees who would be appropriate to complement your >expertise on this work. > >Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing >from you soon. > >Best wishes, >Heike Langenberg > >******************************************** >Dr Heike Langenberg >Chief Editor > >Nature Geoscience ><[5]http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html>[6]http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index .html > > >Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal >forests in Eurasia > >Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger > >Even small changes in the productivity of boreal forest should have >a large effect on the carbon balance, but are challenging to detect >due to their long life span. Human activity has changed climate, >atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the concentrations of >several pollutants over the last decades. Yet the combined effects >of these changes have not been quantified. Here we demonstrate that >the radial growth of one of the main forest species, Scots pine in >Northern Eurasia, has declined by 18% or 0.003 mm per year from the >1950s to the 1980s. This decrease was closely related to sulphur >depositions at the sites, while nitrogen depositions appeared to >increase growth. Additionally, sulphur deposition caused Scots pine >forests to be more sensitive to drought and cold springs. Although >the negative effects on the growth of plants from the relatively >polluted areas have been widely observed, the long-term effects of >sulphur emissions and its spread to ecosystems distant >from the point sources of pollution has never been previously >reported at such a large scale. The study is of fundamental >importance given that pollutant emissions into the atmosphere are >still rising in many regions. > >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 geoscience@nature.com. > > >This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System >NY-610A-NPG&MTS -- 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/ ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** -- 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/ 1606. 2008-04-11 11:50:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:50:05 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: draft EOS document to: Phil Jones Hey Phil, Was good seeing you in Tahiti. Looking forward to next time. I hope your trip back went well. I slept for about 13 hours at the LAX hotel! But was pretty well adjusted the next day. talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > Some thoughts in the attached. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 22:39 08/04/2008, Henry Diaz wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Attached is a draft workshop summary document to be submitted to >> EOS for publication. >> >> Pls. let me have your comments by the end of this week. >> >> Over the next couple of weeks, Yves and I will put together a draft >> outline for the proposed review article. >> >> Aloha, >> >> Henry >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Henry F. Diaz >> NOAA/ESRL/CIRES >> 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 4313. 2008-04-11 13:18:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" , "Arthur Robinson" , "barry.napier" date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:18:13 -0600 from: "Wayne P. Kraus" subject: Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf to: "Vincent Gray" , "Steve McIntyre" Doctors Gray and McIntyre: I have exchanged notes with both of you in the past. I recently found the attached Wegman testimony from the web. It discusses the independent analysis and critique of the Mann, et al. hockey stick plot (MBH98). It seems to me this is the second independent study that proves Mann, et al. manipulated the data to create the hockey stick in their 1998 publication. I am convinced the work by McIntyre and McKittrick came to the same conclusion from a different direction. The Wegman study was requested by the US Congress after its committee questioned Bradley about releasing all his data and about the validity of his conclusions. I was always suspicious about the MBH98 assumption, without any proof, that their time series correlation proved anything about causation. It seems the cause of the hockey stick beginning in 1970 is purely an artifact of urban island heating of the instrumental data they selected to prepare their time series correlation. With this kind of peer review completed has the IPCC dropped its claim that the MBH98 report proves its theory of anthropogenic global warming? It seems to me that plot was the only piece of data IPCC had to remotely suggest a connection between CO2 and climate change. With the MBH98 data shown to be false, does this not end the global warming theory? It seems to me the only thing missing is finding journalists with the integrity to report all the facts rather than a subset of the facts favored by the global warming hysterics. Comments please? Regards, Dr. Wayne Kraus, PhD Littleton, Colorado Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Wegman_Congressional_Testimony.pdf" 1448. 2008-04-14 10:38:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:38:52 +0100 from: "Folland, Chris" subject: RE: Hi Phil & Chris to: "Phil Jones" , "Jim Salinger" Both There is no current significant crop shortage. The biggest reason for the problem is price of rice and wheat due to the sudden increase in wealth in China and India by 100s millions made much worse by the vast coincident increase in the price of oil that affects everything. That’s happened even quicker. The poor cant afford to eat! Don’t think climate change or regional climate problems have more than a minor extra effect. 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: 14 April 2008 10:30 To: Jim Salinger; Folland, Chris Subject: Re: Hi Phil & Chris Jim, Good to hear from you ! I won't be affected as I've moved onto wine now - as has Chris! Odd that all these crop shortages have hit so quickly. It can't just be biofuels. I know there have been poor harvests in Australia and a few other places. I reckon people are blaming biofuels for a host of other reasons. The Daily Star is pretty low in the run of UK papers. Cheers Phil At 22:00 13/04/2008, Jim Salinger wrote: >Hi Phil & Chris > >This comes into the light relief category - the story ran globally. >However I presume the Daily Star is not one of your very prominent >print publications. I did have 2 BBC interviews > >And as they say > >Cheers! > >Jim > > > >http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/34455/We-re-running-short-of-beer > >WE'RE RUNNING SHORT OF BEER > > > >ABOVE: Beer >9th April 2008 >By TOM SAVAGE >Your Shout >Britain could run out of beer due to global warming, experts said >yesterday. >Rising temperatures could spark a worldwide booze crisis, leaving pubs >and off licences dry. > >Experts say barley crops could fail in the heat, meaning a shortage of >one of the key ingredients of beer. > >Climate scientist Jim Salinger warned: Ă¢€œIt will mean eitither there >will be pubs without beer or the cost of beer will go up. > >This would mean hotter summers, but no chance to enjoy a cooling ale. > > >Mr Salinger said the crisis could be averted if heat-resistant strains >of malting barley could be developed. > >He told New ZealandĂ¢€™s Institute of Brewing and Distilling convenvention: >Ă¢€œIt will provide a lot of challenges.Ă¢€Â€ > >Mr Salinger warned that Aussies and Kiwis were most likely to feel the >pinch, but the whole worldĂ¢€â„„¢s beer supply was at risk - and the crisis >could hit within 30 years. > >But Mark Hastings, of the British Beer and Pub Association, said >brewers were already suffering barley shortages, which was pushing the >price of a pint up. > >He said: Ă¢€œItĂ¢€™s already hapdy happening and will get worse. Land that was >used for crops is being given over to biofuels, so barley prices are >up.Ă¢€Â > >His association warned last month the ĂĂ‚Â£4 pint was on its way to parts >of the UK. And global warming is likely to push prices up even higher. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3628. 2008-04-14 12:47:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Apr 14 12:47:40 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: GLA Contract to: "Jake Hacker" Jake, The RCM doesn't do wind very well. Future changes vary a lot between different models, such that the pdf looks silly. Cheers Phil At 11:37 14/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, I have decided to go to the UKCIP meeting on April 22 so will try and lobby for all WG variables and hourly to be retained. What's their problem with wind speed? They do have a habit though of not listening to us stakeholders and ploughing on regardless (unless one is the Environment Agency of course - you didn't' read that last bit!) Thanks for the paper - I will have a look. I think negative daytime UHIs are a feature of most cities - but I'll see if I can track down a reference to back this statement up! It is indeed unfortunate that LWC is up at the top of the building - do you think we should try and apply a correction? Cheers, Jake -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 April 2008 13:18 To: Jake Hacker Subject: RE: GLA Contract > Jake, The contract has all been sorted here. Colin is writing up his bit. You ought to go to the UKCIP08 SG meeting on April 22 if you can. There is a move to try and drop wind speed from the WG variables. Also a lesser move to drop hourly. I'll not be there - in Geneva. I'd like both to stay if at all poss. So need a few to talk up the need. I didn't tell you the last few sentences. I though the attached might be interesting. It shows little more urban related trend in NY over the 20th century. Also on warmest days it is warmer outside the city. This is probably unique to NY. The reason LWC isn't as warm as LHR on the very warmest days is because the measurements are 50m up on a building! 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- ____________________________________________________________ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 896. 2008-04-14 13:53:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: d.lister@uea.ac.uk date: Mon Apr 14 13:53:36 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Revised paper to: Qingxiang, Attached is a revised paper and also the file with the responses to the reviewers that I will send back when we resubmit. I have made all the alterations except the final ones that relate to how we interpret Ren et al versus what was done in the paper. There is some tentative text in at the moment on this issue. In the revised paper I've marked text in the following way: red/orange - I will leave this for the reviewers or the editor to see. This is in response to all the other questions. yellow highlighted text in the abstract and conclusions needs to be modified once the text in blue at the end of section 3.3 is agreed. I am still unsure how to interpret Ren et al (2008) and what we should say. I hope you will be sent the series from Figure 3 in Ren et al. over the next few days. In the meantime have a look at what I've written. I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can't think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the data that makes by their Figure 3. I think ours should be smaller as we include west China, but as you say the south should be affected as much as the north. There is no rush to read this. I have an extension to resubmission to May 21. I am also away in Vienna the rest of this week after tomorrow. I will be in Geneva all next week. Best Regards Phil At 03:45 14/04/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I agree with most of your thonght. I brought some my thonght below. Cheers Qingxiang ======= 2008-04-11 16:12:46 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= > Dear Qingxiang, > I'm hopeful of sending you a revised paper to look through next Tuesday. > Most of the changes are quite easy to respond >to, and I'll make these over the > weekend. > The main issue will be to come up with a justifiable estimate of the > urban-related warming over China. The upper >limit is clearly Ren et al's (2008) > value of about 0.1deg C per decade. The lower limit is the one we had before > from your any my work. This is about 0.01 deg C per decade. > In the results in our current paper, if I >take the differences in trends (from Table 5) > for the longest period (1951-2004) and annual >only (taking the difference between > CRUTEM3v or Li and Li versus HadSST2) I would get 0.08-0.11 deg C per decade. > This is 0.25 or 0.22 minus 0.14. This only >seems to work for the annual, but this > is probably due to using SST (as the rural >estimate). Ren gets roughly the same > value for all the seasons in his Table 3. > > I am playing with a transparency of Ren's >Fig 3. This seems to show that his > rural set of series cool relative to the NS >plot mostly in the first half of the period > from 1961-80. In order to assess this better, >can you ask Ren for the time series > values of the 6 plots in his Figure 3? > > This would be useful to get so I can also >look at the differences in trends over the > 1954-83 period. All this would be for northern >China (as opposed to all of China or > the eastern half). > > My reason for asking is to see if the >greatest differences occur during the 1970s > as implied by the HadSST2 comparisons in our paper. > > Also, if I weight the annual trends in Table >3 by the station counts from his Table 1, > then I get 0.24 deg C per decade. This compares >with the 0.29 deg C per decade for > the NS network. To get this I've assumed his station count for N. China from > Table 1 is 272 and not the 282 he says throughout the paper. > > The OWS network has not been assessed for homogeneity, but it is a large > network and the argument in our paper is that homogeneity assessment should > not make any real difference to trends. OWS is a large network, but this network is a little difference between National network (named by Ren's paper) by observational times and daily temperature calculating methods, and the quaulity of the dataset should be mentioned also. > Finally, some will argue that Ren's rural designation (towns up to 50,000) > could still have some urban effects. The SST comparisons in our paper would > suggest that this is not the case. > > All the above is thinking out aloud and >enabling you to give me your thoughts. > > By the way I think that the two reviewers were Ren and Dave Easterling. > > Only Dave Easterling would know what was said in his 1996 paper and also > only Ren (or one of the co-authors) would know >what was in Ren et al (in press > when the review was done) in J. Climate. > > Have a good weekend. > > Phil > > >At 01:45 11/04/2008, you wrote: >>Dear Phil, >> >>They maybe did some adjustment for say >>"homogeneity" with E-P routine without basic QC >>at first, which I think is not help but harm to >>the qulity of the dataset. The quality of OWS >>has not been fully assessed at first, so I think his result can not confirm me. >> >>Cheers >> >>Qingxiang >> >> >> >> >>======= 2008-04-11 00:05:53 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= >> >> > >> > Qingxiang, >> > Thanks for the comments. >> > >> > One more question - the 1730 OWS stations. Presumably >> > these are not adjusted for homogeneity? >> > >> > I think you've said this. They are not quality controlled. >> > >> > Cheers >> > Phil >> > >> > >> >At 15:54 09/04/2008, you wrote: >> >>Dear Phil, >> >> >> >>I have read Ren's paper and the interesting review comments. >> >>It is a long story of Chinese historical climate network changes >> >>during recent century. But I answer your questions below briefly here. >> >> >> >> Questions >> >> >> >> 1. Guoyu Ren refers to his network over N . China as having 282 >> >> stations. Are >> >> these stations all in the ~730 stations you've used? >> >>No, all the 730 stations are class I and Classs II stations in >> >>China, these stations were national stations. The stations he used >> >>includes some(selected)or all OWSs. I didnot include the OWSs data >> >>in my dataset because several reasons:1) the daily average >> >>temperature calculating methods between these two kinds of stations >> >>are different:National: Daily T= (T2+T8+T14+T20) /20, OWSs: Daily T= >> >>((Tmin+T8)/2+T8+T14+T20)/4; 2) CMA put much affort to maintain those >> >>national stations,and strict rules were used in National stations >> >>during the last 60 years, but for the OWSs, the data has not been >> >>quality controled at present, I think it is too early to talk about >> >>the homogenization of this part of series. >> >> >> >> 2. In terms of your ~730, are these the NS sites that Ren refers >> >> to? I guess >> >> my question is Ren says that there are 143 RCS sites and 530 BWSs. >> >> Are these >> >> in your 730? How do these compare with the 1730 OWSs he refers to? >> >>I guess I just need a breakdown of the numbers of stations in each network >> >> and what are those in your 730? >> >> >> >>Yes, my dataset includes only all the RCSs and BWSs (the difference >> >>between these two kinds of staions is observation times a day, for >> >>thr former, 24 times a day, 4 times for the later, but the data of >> >>these two kinds of data used in my dataset is entirely same(I said >> >>in the front).But I got confidence from the comparason of your >> >>series by 42 stations and mine by ~730 stations. If all the ~730 >> >>stations series are all affected by UHI, I guess the UHI effect in >> >>both our series is too difficult to get the comparable amptitude. >> >>There are no studies published even in Chines on the comparason of >> >>these two kinds of data. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Finally in Ren et al's Table 1, the >> number of stations in each category >> >> (rural, small, medium and large city and metropolis) add to 272 (not 282 >> >> as in the paper). Is one of the counts wrong? >> >> >> >>I have not found this, I will check it later. >> >> >> >> 4. One other question? Is Ren et al using all your adjustments? >> >> >> >>I had given my datset to his group. >> >> >> >> All the best >> >> >> >> 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 >> >----------------------------------------------- >> ----------------------------- >> >> > >> > >> >>= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö >>Àñ£¡ >> >> >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn >>¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-04-11 > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-04-14 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3257. 2008-04-15 09:05:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Apr 15 09:05:51 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Urgent to: "Rachel Warren" Rachel, Some changes interspersed into the text. I don't know why the change was made in the first paragraph from 1850 to 1951. Change this back to 1850, then all should be clear. I've made a couple of other changes. It would be simpler just to remove the penultimate paragraph. I'm away after today until April 26. Cheers Phil At 18:58 14/04/2008, Rachel Warren wrote: Dear Phil We're finalising the ENV report IPCC section now. There's now a section on your research, which I copy below for you to see. Simon Clegg has come back with questions. He wants to know what your 'other sources' of data for recent temperature records are, and he wants to know where the data from 1850 onwards comes from if there were few stations back then. Simon has clearly honed in on wanting a large amount of detail on your work ... Rachel Research in Climate Change The Global Mean Surface Temperature Record The temperature record produced by the School's Climatic Research Unit has been an important contributor to Working Group I in the IPCC's Assessment Reports. Many person years of effort have been needed to evaluate the long-term homogeneity of the land station temperature record, using monthly time series from over 3000 locations. These have been collected by national meteorological services around the world since 1850. Not 1850 above !!!! Also start sentence with Work - below. Work was begun on the temperature record in 1978, using the temperature record from land-based stations, and extended to cover the marine sector in 1986 (and in co-operation with the Hadley Centre of the U.K. Met Office from 1989). Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. In order to avoid biases, monthly average temperatures are reduced to anomalies relative to the period with best coverage (1961-90). Both the land and marine components of this temperature record are then separately interpolated to a set of 5º x 5º latitude/longitude grid boxes. The resultant gridded surface temperature sets, known as HadCRUT3 (for Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit Temperature 3), and HadCRUT3v, extend from 1850 up to present and are updated monthly and annually. **paragraph on temperatures from 1850: what are the early data?** Even temperatures in the modern 1961-1990 reference period are not straightforward to evaluate: because many stations do not have complete records, even for this period, several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. OMIT THIS I'd omit the above paragraph, as it doesn't add much. It just confuses. Both the global surface temperature data sets, and the separate land and marine grids, are used extensively by Working Group I for their report The Physical Science Basis. The temperature record is a central element of the chapter Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, but the data sets in their various forms are also used in the chapters Historic overview of Climate Change Science, Paleoclimate, Climate Model Evaluation and Understanding and Attributing Climate Change), as well as by Working Group II. On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Phil Jones wrote: > > Rachel, > Here's a few sentences. You can pick and choose which bits you want. > > Description of HadCRUT3(v) - the dataset names. CRU does the land and the > Hadley Centre > the ocean. > > > Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time > series are used. The basic monthly average temperature series are collected > by the National Meteorological Services around the world. Coverage is denser > over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, > southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of > the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number > of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 > stations during the period since 1951. For marine regions sea surface > temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval > vessels are used, supplemented by buoy data in recent decades. As the > majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away > from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. > > CRU has spent many person years assessing the long-term homogeneity of the > land station record and the Hadley Centre a similar time undertaking > complementary assessments of the homogeneity of the marine data. > > Stations on land are at different elevations, and different countries > estimate average monthly temperatures using different methods and formulae. > To avoid biases that could result from these problems, monthly average > temperatures are reduced to anomalies from the period with best coverage > (1961-90). For stations to be used, an estimate of the base period average > must be calculated. Because many stations do not have complete records for > the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 > averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the > oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is > impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. > However it is possible to interpolate historical data to create spatially > complete reference climatologies (averages for 1961-90) so that individual > observations can be compared with a local normal for the given day of the > year. > > > Both the component parts (land and marine) are separately interpolated (as > anomalies from 1961-90) to the same 5º x 5º latitude/longitude grid boxes. > The combined versions (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) take values from each > component and weight the grid boxes according to their errors in estimation, > so giving greater weight to the oceanic data as errors of estimate are > generally smaller. > > The gridded surface temperature products (HadCRUT3 and HadCRUT3v) extend > from 1850 up to present. > > Both HadCRUT3/HadCRUT3v and the separate land and marine grids (CRUTEM3 and > HadSST2) are used extensively within WG1 of AR4, principally within Chapter > 3 on 'Observations: Atmospheric Surface nd Climate Change', but the datasets > in their various forms are used in Chapter 1 (Historic overview of Climate > Change Science), Chapter 6 (Paleoclimate), Chapter 8 (Climate Model > Evaluation) and Chapter 9 (Understanding and Attributing Climate Change), as > well as in WG2. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > > At 19:33 17/03/2008, Rachel Warren wrote: > Hi Phil > > I went to see Simon Clegg - and ufnortunately need to trouble you > again - sorry. > > Simon Clegg has emphasised that there really needs to be a section on > the CRU temp record > in the IPCC ENV research section in the ENV report. This means a > paragraph on how the CRU temp record > is put together and where it is used in IPCC. Simon insists that what > is in the 2006/5 ENV report > doesn't explain HOW the temp record is put together which is what he > wants ....ie where data > is collected from, how collated, what did CRU actually do, for how long etc > .... > > Can you help? I'm going to be VERY unpopular if I don't hand this in > complete on Wednesday so > please can you send me something tomorrow? > > Thanks > Rachel > > -- > Dr Rachel Warren > Senior Research Fellow > Tyndall Centre > Zuckermann Institute > University of East Anglia > Norwich NR4 7TJ > > Telephone 01603 593912 > Fax 01603 593901 > E-mail r.warren@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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3121. 2008-04-15 09:24:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:24:55 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: Re: CRU TS3.0 to: Keith Briffa Keith, I've agreed with Ed that I do the PDSI calculations and do some additional quality control tests. Harry will probably keep me updated when he finds more problems with the data. About the Int.J.Clim. paper: I've gone through the remarks you made and which you send me. There are some issues the referees raised, like the infilling of data, which are solved easily. We just have to put more emphasis on the remark we made that infilling is only used for T, the places where P is infilled are flagged as absent and not used in the analysis. I expect that other points are (nearly) as easy. About the Dai paper and other plans with PDSI: the idea is to see if the self-calibrating PDSI is changed dramatically if Penman-Monteith is used rather than Thornthwaite, and i'd like to see a comparison using a complicated and the simple waterbalance model as well. We've discussed this earlier and we don't expect any problems here simply due to the calibrating which probably "adjusts" for any problems with potential evapotranspiration. This should make one paper. The next paper is a global dataset based on the updated CRU data - the rework of Dai's paper. Now that we discuss this topic: I guess we may have problems in regions like the Sahara or Siberia - any ideas yet? We could wait and see how the scPDSI behaves, but is the PDSI a valid index for these regions anyway? Cheers, Gerard > Gerard > do you wish me to chase this up ? Also can you update me on the > Int.J.Clim paper status. Are you considering a rework of the Dai > global paper ? Cheers > Keith > > At 08:38 14/04/2008, you wrote: >> Hi Harry, >> >> Sorry to bother you again about the CRU updated data. >> >> Ed Cook and myself were wondering about the status of the CRU TS 3.0 >> data. Is it ready or not yet? We are slightly confused about the >> status of this update. >> >> Some time ago, I received an ftp address for this data and I >> downloaded the data (both Temp - tx, tg, tn- and Precip). But later, >> I learned that CRU withdrew support for these data - so I stopped >> working with these data. >> >> Can you tell me where (which continents or which time periods) you >> suspect most in the dataset I downloaded? (downloaded it at the end >> of September last year). Or would you advise me not to use the data >> at all before there is a properly tested dataset? >> >> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 1477. 2008-04-15 09:56:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stephan Bojinski , Adrian.Simmons@ecmwf.int date: Tue Apr 15 09:56:20 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AOPC-XIV to: D.E.Harrison@noaa.gov Ed, Hope Nick sends something before next week. When the Nature paper comes out we will be doing a very carefully crafted press release - about the 1940s SSTs. I can add more in on paleo if you want. The ice core isotopes vs local and more distant temperatures work is fairly self contained. The usefulness of corals improves also with cross-dating and they would benefit from looking further into exactly what the corals respond to. All these sorts of analyses are pretty standard stuff in dendrocliamtology. For your flight over I'll attach a submitted paper on this and another one that has just come out on AD 536. The latter year is allegedly the year Arthur died, and the poor harvests in Europe at the time could have led to the Justinian Plague! There is also some more work in submission that shows that massive volcanic eruptions changes the odds in favour of El Nino's - both modelling and observational. Also short (50-100 year bits) coral sequences from the period 1000-1300 suggest that La Nina was more common than today during the MWP. They also show that El Nino was more frequent later during the LIA. All a bit counter-intuitive initially, but when you put the volcanic record up against longer-term ENSO measures you begin to see some links.... Cheers Phil At 19:06 14/04/2008, ed harrison wrote: I'd really love to hear about the ice core results, Phil! It seems that the paleo data are getting more and more emphasis.... Am delighted to have you report your take on the ICOADS issues. Nick Rayner has promised a report on the SST/Sea Ice WG, but haven't got anything from her yet...so cannot give perspective on what she'll send. The much-increased drifting buoy data are a real issue at the 0.1C level for global ocean analyses. They are showing gratifyingly good buoy/buoy comparisons, I'm told. But they don't measure what ship intakes measure, to be sure. best. ed Phil Jones wrote: Stephan, I realize I've not sent any reports for the meeting. I'm scheduled to give something for paleo at some point. I'm in Vienna at EGU from Wednesday, so will prepare something. I have noticed in the agenda that I can respond to a few of the action points. No need to alter agenda at this stage. 1. Surface Water Vapour - I can find a few ppt of about 5-10 minutes on this new dataset. 2. The effect of changes to the SST data in the 1940s. A paper in Nature will appear on this in June/July in Nature. This relates to the changing mix of obs that go into ICOADS (so a bit like the changes in XBTs that will likely alter the OHC curve). 3. Related to this there are possible changes in SSTs going on now as we have a much greater percentage of bouy as opposed to ship SST data. These 2 items best with whatever Ed says - say 10-15 mins. The surface water vapour dataset best at this point also, as the issues that relate to it are more marine related. 4. Some recent paleo advances - improved understanding of Greenland Ice Cores. This item only if there is time - say 10-15 mins. See you all Monday. I'll be there for the AGG in the morning. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 664. 2008-04-15 14:48:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace date: Tue Apr 15 14:48:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Press release to: David Thompson , John Kennedy John, Meant to reply earlier but got sidetracked. Sounds good. Reiterating why the recent cooling is occurring would be useful. Another way of showing this is to take two of Dave's series. You have one - HadCRUT3v monthly the other is the file Dave has sent me. This is the ENSO component. If Dave has this up to date, you could then show global T without ENSO. Worth considering when you discuss things with Chris. It will play down 97/98 and play up recent values. Might only need to show raw and ENSO factored out for the last 20 years. Don't factor COWL out - as that might be more influenced by global warming, not that ENSO isn't.... Cheers Phil At 14:15 15/04/2008, David Thompson wrote: John, This sounds like a good plan. I expect we'll get the proofs in a few weeks... my best guess is that the paper will appear late May or early June. Phil: what are your thoughts? Do you want to entrain Dick? -Dave On Apr 14, 2008, at 5:31 PM, John Kennedy wrote: Dear all, We (David Parker, myself, Chris Folland's successor and others) are having a meeting here later this week to discuss this. I thought that given the recent interest in the relatively low global temperatures in Jan and Feb 2008, it might be interesting to run the filtered series up to the present. I don't know how easy this would be to do, but I expect it would show that the dip at the start of this year is associated with internal variability - chiefly La Nina. Dave, do you know (roughly) when the paper will appear? John On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 17:00 +0100, David Thompson wrote: Hi Phil (and John), I agree a preemptive press release is a very good idea (I've chatted with Mike and he shares this view, too). As for logistics: do you and John (that is: UEA and the Hadley Centre) want to craft the first draft? Mike and I could then offer comments on the draft (Mike might even run the release by the UW press folks to get their opinion). I don't plan to involve the CSU press folks with the exception of sending them the final version. I don't have any specific suggestions, except that it might be nice to consider a "question and answer" format which clarifies what the results do and do not say about the quality of the data. I'm not entirely comfortable asking the editor to do a news and views item, since that seems like the editor's role. But if you feel strongly about this, I could send him a short email suggesting a possible author (Dick Reynolds). -Dave -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [1]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [3]http://www.hadobs.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1035. 2008-04-15 14:54:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Apr 15 14:54:23 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: CRU TS3.0 to: Gerard van der Schrier Gerard First - will you do the first pass at the paper correction - I agree that not that difficult as first thought - but see my previous comments. As for the PDSI and alternative use of Thornthwaite and Penmann-Monteith , I suggested before that this test is perhaps best done using a selection of station tests, selected from "representative regions" where data exist that allow both to be calculated and perhaps where more direct measures of soil water state exist. I take your point about the "calibration" period correcting for some differences , but it is perhaps more valid to worry about the use of Thornthwaite in the first place - there are earlier reviews saying that this is not a good method is certain parts of the world - and this links to your other point re the validity of PDSI or scPDSI in areas of permafrost , heavy snow/lie and very dry areas. Certainly some comparison at sites where actual soil water is directly monitored (Robock Russian work) , surely some sites in US and UK would be available here ? However , the main reason is to explore this and reassess Dai ( criticizing those areas that are invalid for whatever reasons) - and the IPCC map that shows drought world wide (PC1) see attached - did this get into the final report , I need to check. Happy you are still going this way and of course would like to be involved . Ditto that you are happy to work on the 1000-year oak -based reconstruction - centred on Northwest Europe. We will process the oak data and get back to you on this soon. cheers Keith At 10:24 15/04/2008, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Keith, I've agreed with Ed that I do the PDSI calculations and do some additional quality control tests. Harry will probably keep me updated when he finds more problems with the data. About the Int.J.Clim. paper: I've gone through the remarks you made and which you send me. There are some issues the referees raised, like the infilling of data, which are solved easily. We just have to put more emphasis on the remark we made that infilling is only used for T, the places where P is infilled are flagged as absent and not used in the analysis. I expect that other points are (nearly) as easy. About the Dai paper and other plans with PDSI: the idea is to see if the self-calibrating PDSI is changed dramatically if Penman-Monteith is used rather than Thornthwaite, and i'd like to see a comparison using a complicated and the simple waterbalance model as well. We've discussed this earlier and we don't expect any problems here simply due to the calibrating which probably "adjusts" for any problems with potential evapotranspiration. This should make one paper. The next paper is a global dataset based on the updated CRU data - the rework of Dai's paper. Now that we discuss this topic: I guess we may have problems in regions like the Sahara or Siberia - any ideas yet? We could wait and see how the scPDSI behaves, but is the PDSI a valid index for these regions anyway? Cheers, Gerard Gerard do you wish me to chase this up ? Also can you update me on the Int.J.Clim paper status. Are you considering a rework of the Dai global paper ? Cheers Keith At 08:38 14/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Harry, Sorry to bother you again about the CRU updated data. Ed Cook and myself were wondering about the status of the CRU TS 3.0 data. Is it ready or not yet? We are slightly confused about the status of this update. Some time ago, I received an ftp address for this data and I downloaded the data (both Temp - tx, tg, tn- and Precip). But later, I learned that CRU withdrew support for these data - so I stopped working with these data. Can you tell me where (which continents or which time periods) you suspect most in the dataset I downloaded? (downloaded it at the end of September last year). Or would you advise me not to use the data at all before there is a properly tested dataset? 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 [1]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 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 [3]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 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 3197. 2008-04-15 16:19:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gabi Hegerl , Myles Allen , Tim Barnett , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Knutti Reto , Toru Nozawa , Tom Knutson , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , Michael Wehner , Francis Zwiers , Hans von Storch date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:19:34 +0100 from: Peter Stott subject: Re: IDAG report pls read to: JKenyon Hi Gabi and Jesse, I've added some more text on some of the Hadley Centre stuff that we've delivered. In addition to these, we have other pieces of work that are relevant and that could deliver in the next year. These include Gareth Jones et al Attribution of changes due to black carbon - our HadGEM results which include separate black carbon runs indicate black carbon could make a significant contribution to 20th century temperature change. Would be nice to link this with Toru's results if we can. Nikos Christidis et al, Detection of hot days if use location parameter trends Stott et al, Detection of Atlantic salinity changes work in progress Peter Good et al Attribution of changes in extreme temperature at local scales Peter On Fri, 2008-04-11 at 13:04 -0400, JKenyon wrote: > Hi all, > This is a draft of the report, long on references and short on > explanations. > PLEASE add some more text where you can see fit. Thanks > need this by monday evening > Gabi > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\idag_interimprogress_markI_DAS_PAS.doc" 3394. 2008-04-16 09:58:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Apr 16 09:58:52 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: CRU TS3.0 to: Gerard van der Schrier Morning Gerard the parameter I expect to be best represented in these data is the mean PDSI for summer, in that the trees will grow well in spring and summer in response to warm conditions provided there is sufficient soil water. They will not do well reconstruction temperature or precipitation individually , or even in combination because of lag effects in the association between rain and soil moisture , and over supply of rain will have no affect on growth (or slight negative because of associated summer cold). As for the Gabbi idea we would be better to discuss by phone. I will ring you cheers Keith At 09:41 16/04/2008, you wrote: Keith, Ditto that you are happy to work on the 1000-year oak -based reconstruction - centred on Northwest Europe. We will process the oak data and get back to you on this soon. About these oak recons. - I am thinking of doing perhaps something similar to what Gaby Hegerl did in her J. Clim paper (2007, detection of human influence on a new, validated 1500-yr temp. recon.) Do you think that's possible? What exactly is the parameter you want to reconstruct with these oak data? Cheers, gerard cheers Keith At 10:24 15/04/2008, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Keith, I've agreed with Ed that I do the PDSI calculations and do some additional quality control tests. Harry will probably keep me updated when he finds more problems with the data. About the Int.J.Clim. paper: I've gone through the remarks you made and which you send me. There are some issues the referees raised, like the infilling of data, which are solved easily. We just have to put more emphasis on the remark we made that infilling is only used for T, the places where P is infilled are flagged as absent and not used in the analysis. I expect that other points are (nearly) as easy. About the Dai paper and other plans with PDSI: the idea is to see if the self-calibrating PDSI is changed dramatically if Penman-Monteith is used rather than Thornthwaite, and i'd like to see a comparison using a complicated and the simple waterbalance model as well. We've discussed this earlier and we don't expect any problems here simply due to the calibrating which probably "adjusts" for any problems with potential evapotranspiration. This should make one paper. The next paper is a global dataset based on the updated CRU data - the rework of Dai's paper. Now that we discuss this topic: I guess we may have problems in regions like the Sahara or Siberia - any ideas yet? We could wait and see how the scPDSI behaves, but is the PDSI a valid index for these regions anyway? Cheers, Gerard Gerard do you wish me to chase this up ? Also can you update me on the Int.J.Clim paper status. Are you considering a rework of the Dai global paper ? Cheers Keith At 08:38 14/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Harry, Sorry to bother you again about the CRU updated data. Ed Cook and myself were wondering about the status of the CRU TS 3.0 data. Is it ready or not yet? We are slightly confused about the status of this update. Some time ago, I received an ftp address for this data and I downloaded the data (both Temp - tx, tg, tn- and Precip). But later, I learned that CRU withdrew support for these data - so I stopped working with these data. Can you tell me where (which continents or which time periods) you suspect most in the dataset I downloaded? (downloaded it at the end of September last year). Or would you advise me not to use the data at all before there is a properly tested dataset? 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 [1]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 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 [3]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 [4]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 [5]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 [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 393. 2008-04-17 17:11:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:11:58 -0400 from: "Elizabeth Peacock" subject: RE: Emerging from Hibernation to: "'Mark Hassall'" , , "'Miroslaw Kuc'" , "'Tim Osborn'" Hi Mark - Thanks for your notes. I added some comments to them. I think it would be great if you took a first stab at the Introduction. You and I could bat it around - as we have a pretty good idea of how things will pan out. Although you may not know as much about polar bears ---- you certainly do have by far the most experience in writing and the most broad ecological background to make this interesting to a wider audience. I can help out with the pbear ideas. I've attached Amy's stab at the methods here. Miro will eventually add some technical parts re: RISKMAN and natality. I haven't had the time to comment on them yet. The results should be coming in in waves from Miro. Once I get them all - I can take a look and summarize them and suggest to the group what I think is most poignant, unique and interesting in terms of polar bear conservation, management and ecology. At that point - we could talk about the discussion. Things are coming together ...... I leave for Baffin Bay quota reduction meetings on Monday. Wish me luck. Elizabeth Peacock, Ph.D. Polar bear biologist Department of Environment Government of Nunavut Box 209 Igloolik, NU X0A-0L0 epeacock@nunavutwildlife.ca ph: 867-934-2186 fx: 867-934-2190 From: Mark Hassall [mailto:M.Hassall@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:29 PM To: amyoliver@cantab.net; mktaylor@qiniq.com; 'Miroslaw Kuc'; 'Elizabeth Peacock'; 'Tim Osborn' Subject: Emerging from Hibernation Dear All, I feel a bit as though I am emerging from hibernation to discover that everyone else has been beavering away all winter while I've been sleeping. Sorry about this, I'll try and make up I promise. To help me get back into gear I have been through all my notes and the e-mails you have kindly sent me and written out for my own benefit what I thought were the key elements of what has been happening since last December. Please could you be kind enough to glance through these notes and let me have any comments and corrections that you think appropriate. I make a few suggestions as to how I might contribute to the writing and would be especially grateful for comments on those. All the best, its good to be out of the den on the fresh clean snow again. (I know, someone is about to tell me male polar bears don't hibernate in dens, so let's pretend I am an errant grizzly!!!!) Cheers, Mark Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Polar Bear Project Progress Summary_lp.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Methods.doc" 2691. 2008-04-18 14:15:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:15:58 +0200 from: "Klein Tank, Albert \(KNMI\)" subject: Extremes workshop: agenda and logistics to: "Albert Klein Tank \(Klein Tank, Albert\)" Dear colleague, Following our previous message about the workshop on "EXTREMES IN A CHANGING CLIMATE" (to be held in De Bilt, the Netherlands, 14-15 May 2008), we are happy to send you the provisional meeting agenda (attached) and some practical information (below). In case you have not yet indicated that you are interested to attend this workshop, but want to come after reading the agenda, please contact us as soon as possible. Together with Francis Zwiers (Environment Canada, co-chair of the ETCCDI) and Lisa Alexander (Monash University, organiser of the Friday session on "Issues of scaling"), we look forward to meet you in De Bilt. Best regards, Albert Klein Tank and Adri Buishand, KNMI, The Netherlands ***************************** ORGANISATION: The workshop will be jointly organised by the Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI, see http://www.clivar.org/organization/etccdi/etccdi.php) and the EU-FP6 project ENSEMBLES (see http://www.ensembles-eu.org/). MEETING AGENDA: See attachment. REGISTRATION: There is no fee for registration, coffee/tea and lunches (sandwiches) during the meeting. These will be sponsored by KNMI. PARTICIPANTS: A list of confirmed participants is attached. TRAVEL AND HOTEL: We ask participants to make their own travel and hotel arrangements. Members of the ETCCDI should have been in contact with the JCOMM, CLIVAR or CCL staff person about travel support by now. A list of hotels is available from the meeting website at http://www.clivar.org/organization/etccdi/etccdi3/hotels_list.pdf There is a direct train from Amsterdam Airport Schiphol to Utrecht Central Station (leaves every 30 minutes and the journey takes about 30 minutes). Local transportation from Utrecht to KNMI in De Bilt (about 5 km) is by public bus. From Utrecht Central Station one can take several buslines: 50, 52, 53, 74. Embark at busstop "Tunneltje De Bilt". You will probably see the KNMI radar tower from the bus on your right hand side. For details see: http://www.knmi.nl/research/climate_observations/service/route.html Bus tickets can be bought either from the bus driver or (in advance for several trips) at Schiphol railway station or Utrecht bus station. You can also rent a bike and do as the Dutch do (but lock your bike!). INTERNET: For security reasons, there will be no wireless in the KNMI building where the meeting is held. However, there will be PC's available with connection to the Internet for workshop participants. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\extremes_draftagenda_v2.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\extremes_participants_v1.pdf" 5043. 2008-04-21 06:13:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, "Gerard van der Schrier" date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:13:07 +0700 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: CRU TS3.0 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, I just did a Google search on "CRU TS 3.0" to see if I could find any reference to it for a progress report I am writing and hit upon your site "TimOsborn's ClimGen". I kind of figured that it wasn't supposed to be found that way given the very targeted audience that it appeared to be for. Your cautionary tail is also appreciated. It sounds like TS 3.0 has been a real challenge to get right. 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 ================================== On Apr 21, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Gerard and Ed, > > I didn't think that I'd linked my climgen data page from anywhere else > (yet) because it isn't ready for public release (yet), though I have > forwarded the URL to a few "private" users -- maybe they have added > it as > a link to their websites? May I ask where you stumbled across it? > > There have been many problems with CRU TS 3.0 data files so far. I > probably wouldn't use anything from Sep 2007 -- though perhaps mean > temperature (tmp) is ok; certainly min and max temperature (tmn and > tmx) > and precipitation (pre) are rubbish and aren't salvageable by > avoiding a > few regions! If you got vapour pressure and/or wetday counts, then > those > too were almost completely wrong. > > However, I'm much more confident about the accuracy of the files on my > climgen website, which Harry has re-calculated over recent weeks. At > least for data since 1950. There's probably some problems during > 1901-1950, though probably fewer that in the CRU TS 2.1 version > (though > some problems are new!). No doubt there are some problems post > 1950 too, > but again there were probably more in CRU TS 2.1. Still waiting for > vapour pressure and wetdays, and cloud cover updates are some > months away. > > The question is, are they ready for use? Nobody has really used > them in > anger yet. I'm distributing them to the QUEST-GSI project, who will > probably be the first users -- they may find problems that we may > correct. > > If you're willing to use them with the expectation that there may > be some > updates to correct certain problems (more so before 1950 I'd > guess), then > I'm happy for this. Harry sounds as if he isn't -- or at least > that he > wasn't so happy for them to be distributed back in Sep 2007. I've > cc'd > Phil to see what he thinks -- also Phil may want to say how you > might cite > the data set (e.g. provisional paper authors/title?). > > If you do use the data, then the ascii/text files on my climgen > website > are in a fairly self-explanatory format (time series for each land > grid > box), though Harry has also produced netCDF files containing grids of > monthly data. > > Cheers > > Tim > > Regarding data versions, > On Sun, April 20, 2008 10:44 am, Edward Cook wrote: >> Hi Gerard, >> >> Perhaps you already know it, but apparently the precip problem over >> Bangladesh has been corrected now (Harry indicated that was in >> progress) as indicated by a website description of Tim Osborn >> (http:// >> www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/climgen/data/questgsi/). He even provides an >> ftp link for the TS 3.0 data files (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >> climgen/data/questgsi/globobs/), perhaps not thinking that I would >> stumble across it. Anyway, if not already too late, perhaps you will >> want to use the newest version of the TS 3.0 precip data to generate >> the global scPDSI data. >> >> 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 >> ================================== >> >> On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: >> >>> Hi Ed, >>> >>> Given Harry's reply, shall I just use the data I have (version of >>> September 2007), and run some quality control checks? >>> >>> Cheers, Gerard >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Gerard, >>> >>> On 14 Apr 2008, at 8:38, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: >>>> Hi Harry, >>>> >>>> Sorry to bother you again about the CRU updated data. >>>> >>>> Ed Cook and myself were wondering about the status of the CRU TS >>>> 3.0 data. Is it ready or not yet? We are slightly confused about >>>> the status of this update. >>> >>> Sorry about that. If it was up to me, there would be no confusion >>> because nobody would have seen it at all.. but in real life there >>> are shifting priorities.. >>> >>>> Some time ago, I received an ftp address for this data and I >>>> downloaded the data (both Temp - tx, tg, tn- and Precip). But >>>> later, I learned that CRU withdrew support for these data - so I >>>> stopped working with these data. >>>> >>>> Can you tell me where (which continents or which time periods) >>>> you suspect most in the dataset I downloaded? (downloaded it at >>>> the end of September last year). Or would you advise me not to >>>> use the data at all before there is a properly tested dataset? >>> >>> I *think* temperature is OK. Precip has a few glitches, (which >>> I've been investigating over the past two weeks), the major one >>> is Bangladesh in the 1990s. Here, updates were added to the >>> database a year or two back but were 10x too low.. I've now found >>> and corrected that. Precip *currently* being regernerated (as I >>> type!). >>> >>> So - use Temp, and Precip but not Bangladesh. Or anywhere else >>> that looks odd when you examine it ;-) >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>> >>> Ian "Harry" Harris >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> School of Environmental Sciences >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich NR4 7TJ >>> United Kingdom >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >>> ---------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > > > 2128. 2008-04-21 08:56:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:56:29 +0000 from: Gerard van der Schrier subject: Re: CRU TS3.0 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, I'm slightly confused by the data on the ftp site. Are the .climgen files just unzipped versions of the .tar.gz files? Cheers, Gerard Hi Gerard and Ed, I didn't think that I'd linked my climgen data page from anywhere else (yet) because it isn't ready for public release (yet), though I have forwarded the URL to a few "private" users -- maybe they have added it as a link to their websites? May I ask where you stumbled across it? There have been many problems with CRU TS 3.0 data files so far. I probably wouldn't use anything from Sep 2007 -- though perhaps mean temperature (tmp) is ok; certainly min and max temperature (tmn and tmx) and precipitation (pre) are rubbish and aren't salvageable by avoiding a few regions! If you got vapour pressure and/or wetday counts, then those too were almost completely wrong. However, I'm much more confident about the accuracy of the files on my climgen website, which Harry has re-calculated over recent weeks. At least for data since 1950. There's probably some problems during 1901-1950, though probably fewer that in the CRU TS 2.1 version (though some problems are new!). No doubt there are some problems post 1950 too, but again there were probably more in CRU TS 2.1. Still waiting for vapour pressure and wetdays, and cloud cover updates are some months away. The question is, are they ready for use? Nobody has really used them in anger yet. I'm distributing them to the QUEST-GSI project, who will probably be the first users -- they may find problems that we may correct. If you're willing to use them with the expectation that there may be some updates to correct certain problems (more so before 1950 I'd guess), then I'm happy for this. Harry sounds as if he isn't -- or at least that he wasn't so happy for them to be distributed back in Sep 2007. I've cc'd Phil to see what he thinks -- also Phil may want to say how you might cite the data set (e.g. provisional paper authors/title?). If you do use the data, then the ascii/text files on my climgen website are in a fairly self-explanatory format (time series for each land grid box), though Harry has also produced netCDF files containing grids of monthly data. Cheers Tim Regarding data versions, On Sun, April 20, 2008 10:44 am, Edward Cook wrote: Hi Gerard, Perhaps you already know it, but apparently the precip problem over Bangladesh has been corrected now (Harry indicated that was in progress) as indicated by a website description of Tim Osborn ([1]http:// [2]www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/climgen/data/questgsi/). He even provides an ftp link for the TS 3.0 data files ([3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ climgen/data/questgsi/globobs/), perhaps not thinking that I would stumble across it. Anyway, if not already too late, perhaps you will want to use the newest version of the TS 3.0 precip data to generate the global scPDSI data. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [4]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Hi Ed, Given Harry's reply, shall I just use the data I have (version of September 2007), and run some quality control checks? Cheers, Gerard Hi Gerard, On 14 Apr 2008, at 8:38, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: Hi Harry, Sorry to bother you again about the CRU updated data. Ed Cook and myself were wondering about the status of the CRU TS 3.0 data. Is it ready or not yet? We are slightly confused about the status of this update. Sorry about that. If it was up to me, there would be no confusion because nobody would have seen it at all.. but in real life there are shifting priorities.. Some time ago, I received an ftp address for this data and I downloaded the data (both Temp - tx, tg, tn- and Precip). But later, I learned that CRU withdrew support for these data - so I stopped working with these data. Can you tell me where (which continents or which time periods) you suspect most in the dataset I downloaded? (downloaded it at the end of September last year). Or would you advise me not to use the data at all before there is a properly tested dataset? I *think* temperature is OK. Precip has a few glitches, (which I've been investigating over the past two weeks), the major one is Bangladesh in the 1990s. Here, updates were added to the database a year or two back but were 10x too low.. I've now found and corrected that. Precip *currently* being regernerated (as I type!). So - use Temp, and Precip but not Bangladesh. Or anywhere else that looks odd when you examine it ;-) Cheers Harry Cheers, Gerard -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [5]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [6]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [7]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [8]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------- Gerard van der Schrier Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) dept. KS/KA PO Box 201 3730 AE De Bilt The Netherlands [9]schrier@knmi.nl +31-30-2206597 [10]www.knmi.nl/~schrier ---------------------------------------------------------- 3889. 2008-04-22 12:54:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, i.harris@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:54:53 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: {Spam?} Re: Status] to: "David Lister" David, Looks as though the time series data are wrong then for 61-96 assuming that you've not updated the earlier data with VAP data, where the earlier was something other than VAP. As I said earlier the time series data for the Gabon sites for VAP look like temperature data from somewhere like Ireland. Hope you can sort this out! Cheers Phil > Phil/Harry/Tim, > > I have looked in Mark New's normals database (I have not yet looked in the > "red book"). The Gabon stations are listed below: > > 6450000GAB8795 1719 301 308 302 309 304 274 248 250 268 288 297 > 306 > 6450300GAB6190100-1 287 289 296 308 294 242 223 232 254 277 287 > 277 > 6450400GAB6190100-1 298 301 305 301 301 279 255 261 286 287 294 > 289 > 6451000GAB8795 1419 272 256 255 260 263 256 247 243 249 260 261 > 258 > 6454500GAB6190100-1 239 241 247 250 249 242 226 226 240 244 243 > 257 > 6455000GAB8795 1119 301 299 294 301 305 274 249 250 267 283 290 > 301 > 6455200GAB6190100-1 261 264 266 253 268 254 237 236 249 254 258 > 249 > 6455600GAB6190100-1 251 249 253 255 250 239 227 226 239 244 243 > 240 > 6456500GAB6190100-1 227 263 268 268 260 230 219 226 248 261 263 > 258 > > > These values look reasonable to me. I will check further if required. > NB four of the above (code="-1") are derived variables. The others come > from CRU's GPD. > > Cheers > > David > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > >> ---------------------------- Original Message >> ---------------------------- >> Subject: Re: {Spam?} Re: Status >> From: f028@uea.ac.uk >> Date: Tue, April 22, 2008 7:45 am >> To: "Ian Harris" >> Cc: "Tim Osborn" >> "Phil Jones" >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Tim, Harry, >> First can't see why Harry's email has come as spam. >> >> A few thoughts on the data for the 2 Gabon stations. >> If these are supposed to VAP data then the data for the >> period 1961-1996 looks completely wrong. The later data looks >> better! >> >> Seems as though these two sites and the others for the country >> ought to be removed. I'm making this suggestion based on >> common sense. Gabon is near the equator and I think most is >> jungle. >> >> I could be wrong. The Sudan VAP for El Dueim looks OK. It should >> drop during teh dry season. >> >> Maybe ask David to have a look. Or have a look at a station in an >> adjacent country. >> >> No idea what the Gabon numbers are for the 61-96 period! They look >> like temperatures from somewhere like Ireland! >> >> Hope you can find the problem! >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> A little more detail now I've had a chance to look at the files. Try >>> and view this email in a monospaced font! Or it'll look awful. >>> >>> On 21 Apr 2008, at 16:23, Tim Osborn wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Harry, >>>> >>>> yes, please focus on WET first. >>>> >>>> then please take a look at the VAP station data in the countries of >>>> Gabon (1st priority) and Sudan (2nd priority), for 2003 onwards. >>>> >>>> I've checked the synthetic vap and that does not have extremely high >>>> recent values, so it seems to be coming from the stations. I masked >>>> out areas not near to stations and the high extremes are still >>>> there... so that's further evidence it is in the stations. Gabon >>>> shows particularly strong anomalies (approaching 20 hPa above normal >>>> at times), but there are some over 10 hPa above normal in the Sudan >>>> area too. >>>> >>>> The two ncview.*.pdf files attached show the anomaly maps for 2 >>>> selected months during 2003-2005 (see file names for specific >>>> months/years). I've masked in dark blue areas outside the CDD >>>> distance from a station (according to your ...vap.stn.nc file). The >>>> high values are red (surrounded a yellow stripe). Gabon in west >>>> equatorial Africa stands out in both, Sudan in one. Both have >>>> numerous other high anomalies like this from Jan 2003 onwards. They >>>> are the cause of spikes in country-mean VAP in the other attached file >>>> -- see page 15 for Gabon (and neighbouring countries) and page 13 for >>>> Sudan (and neighbouring countries). Sudan looks less severe, but >>>> that's partly because it is larger and the averaging takes in more >>>> synthetic vap values from outside the station's neighbourhood. >>>> >>>> The extreme positive anomalies occur close to (this is from visual >>>> reading off the screen, so not fully precise!): >>>> >>>> Gabon: 9.25 E, 0.25 S -- is there a station at Port-Gentil? >>> >>> There is - well, three, as this is a database I haven't cleansed: >>> >>> -645014 -187 1102 89 MOUILA GABON 1971 1996 >>> -999 -999.00 >>> -645009 50 940 15 LIBREVILLE GABON 1971 1996 >>> -999 0.85 >>> -645008 -70 875 4 PORT GENTIL GABON 1971 2002 >>> -999 -999 >>> -645007 -70 875 4 PORT GENTIL GABON 1994 2003 >>> -999 nocode >>> 6450000 45 942 15 LIBREVILLE/LEON MBA GABON 1979 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6450100 -70 875 4 PORT GENTIL GABON 2003 2007 >>> -999 0 >>> 6451000 208 1148 599 BITAM GABON 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6450300 -342 1065 34 MAYUMBA GABON 1971 2005 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6450400 100 960 13 COCOBEACH GABON 1971 2004 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6450700 -285 1102 79 TCHIBANGA GABON 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6451000 208 1148 599 BITAM GABON 1971 1996 >>> -999 >>> 6455100 -72 1023 26 LAMBARENE GABON 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6455200 78 1153 583 MITZIC GABON 1971 2004 >>> -999 >>> 6455600 57 1287 515 MAKOKOU/EPASSENGUE GABON 1971 2006 >>> -999 >>> 6456000 -83 1271 485 LASTOURSVILLE GABON 1971 1996 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6456500 -153 1326 573 MOANDA GABON 1971 1996 >>> -999 >>> 6455000 -187 1102 89 MOUILA CITY GABON 2003 2007 >>> -999 0 >>> >>> Now, NONE of these stations should contribute to the product, since our >>> specified cutoff is 75%, or 23 values per month between 1961 and 1990. >>> But for a couple, a normals line is present: >>> 6450000 45 942 15 LIBREVILLE/LEON MBA GABON 1979 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6451000 208 1148 599 BITAM GABON 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> >>> These two stations have several things in common. Firstly, they both >>> have a populated normals line, even though their data counts are too >>> low. Secondly, their values (and normals) are significantly below the >>> rest of GABON (ie, between 40 and 180 rather than between 200 and 350). >>> Thirdly, they both have a swathe of missing values 1997-2002, followed >>> by patchy data that looks like the rest of GABON (ie, too high for the >>> normals lines). Here they are, in full: >>> >>> 6450000 45 942 15 LIBREVILLE/LEON MBA GABON 1979 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6190 65 65 75 87 111 135 149 147 135 110 83 72 >>> 1979-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 79 83 >>> 1980 59 80 77 85 99 136 149 160 149 100 76 71 >>> 1981 68 59 98 93 125 135 155 156 135 92 83 54 >>> 1982 51 60 73 78 107 147 161 150 149 114 94 70 >>> 1983 79 52 78 93 109 137 182 159 136 105 87 72 >>> 1984 69 62 66 78 109 121 139 154 131 111 95 74 >>> 1985 43 45 72 92 118 123 154 139 139 107 68 83 >>> 1986 64 37 71 82 115 140 146 130 106 113 91 77 >>> 1987 45 65 63 100 100 138 150 149 141 106 83 74 >>> 1988 80 67 76 84 120 136 150 148 134 114 86 93 >>> 1989 76 77 92 84 121 129 156 147 144 116 79 76 >>> 1990 79 85 89 86 112 137 136 151 121 115 84 69 >>> 1991 64 55 97 84 100 119 164 150 138 107 80 68 >>> 1992 66 76 83 93 130 146 153 160 134 95 93 72 >>> 1993 77 61 64 93 110 127 138 127 122 93 64 76 >>> 1994 72 64 91 89 112 133 173 150 137 104 115 84 >>> 1995 71 85 69 95 105 132 178 152 132 130 86 58 >>> 1996 59 60 69 86 101 138 147 153 114 106 89 58 >>> 1997-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 1998-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 1999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2000-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2001-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2002-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2003 305 320 311-9999-9999 275 277-9999-9999 300 303 313 >>> 2004 319 315-9999-9999 290 265-9999-9999 283-9999-9999 307 >>> 2005 316 318 311-9999 291 258-9999-9999 281-9999-9999 299 >>> 2006-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 295 266-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2007 318 313-9999-9999-9999 277-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> >>> 6451000 208 1148 599 BITAM GABON 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6190 67 65 74 84 110 135 149 147 133 111 84 72 >>> 1971 66-9999 65 85 122 128 157 149 117 104 79 81 >>> 1972 62 72 73 88 105 121 162 142 114 91 85 70 >>> 1973 69 69 70 78 113 140 150 154 137 100 79 68 >>> 1974 80 72 83 81 106 134 140 151 127 88 85 90 >>> 1975 85 64 76 90 101 129 158 161-9999 100 80-9999 >>> 1976 73 69 61 72 104 132 142 131 128 116 86 60 >>> 1977 70 78 84 77 100 136 149 151 120 120 85 80 >>> 1978 66 62 80 80 117 129 140 132 127 113 82 69 >>> 1979 44 53 74 82 108 143 144 140 127 116 85 83 >>> 1980 60 79 75 77 91 128 145 155 141 101 78 70 >>> 1981 69 59 97 86 120 130 154 159 134 102 90 59 >>> 1982 62 65 72 77 110 150 165 156 150 115 95 71 >>> 1983 82 55 81 91 105 138 181 160 133 107 86 73 >>> 1984 70 63 65 71 106 125 140 154 134 120 100 74 >>> 1985 46 47 70 88 118 124 147 137 137 106 68 83 >>> 1986 66 34 70 77 111 144 147 130 111 119 92 77 >>> 1987 46 66 64 95 98 139 152 153 150 112 87 77 >>> 1988 84 69 78 84 121 135 148 147 130 115 84 92 >>> 1989 77 71 82 76 114 119 145 138 141 116 76 75 >>> 1990 76 81 82 82 107 131 134 150 120 115 86 70 >>> 1991 66 53 88 75 94 117 162 150 137 107 81 68 >>> 1992 65 74 81 84 116 146 166 165 133 89 92 71 >>> 1993 77 63 70 100 123 140 147 135 131 101 68 80 >>> 1994 77 65 83 86 115 133 170 153 136 102 114 85 >>> 1995 71 84 70 96 109 134 178 157 131 134 88 60 >>> 1996 62 58 66 85 103 134 140 149 121 111 83 58 >>> 1997-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 1998-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 1999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2000-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2001-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2002-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2003 255-9999 261-9999-9999 253 250-9999-9999 256 255 259 >>> 2004 265 250-9999-9999 259 245-9999-9999 245-9999-9999 266 >>> 2005 266-9999-9999-9999 257-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2006-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 253 247-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> 2007 244 252-9999-9999-9999 253-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> >>> I would say that somehow the presence of an illegal normals line is >>> allowing these 'bad' stations to be included. You'd almost call it >>> sabotage, wouldn't you? >>> >>> The obvious fix would be to replace the normals with missing values, >>> though it rankles to leave bad data in the database. And we'd end up >>> with no Gabon stations contributing at all! >>> >>>> Sudan: 32.75 E, 13.25 S -- perhaps Khartoum or somewhere just to the >>>> south of that? >>> >>> It's a similar story to Gabon, sorry. This is the culprit, showing >>> header, normals line, and 2003-2007: >>> >>> 6275000 1400 3233 378 ED DUEIM SUDAN 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6190 64 60 69 78 102 127 143 143 130 109 83 70 >>> 2003 89 69 63 85 213 210 247 266 247 198 119 102 >>> 2004 87 76 74 86 126 192 212 237 231 168 117 103 >>> 2005 77 107 69 97 125 186 231 247 233 176 108 122 >>> 2006 105 87 103 73 173 179 227 246 239 269 97 83 >>> 2007 80 70 82 95-9999 203-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999-9999 >>> >>> (again, there was a block of missing values 1997-2002). >>> >>> The only other Sudanese stations with enough data to contribute are OK: >>> 6260000 2182 3148 183 HALFA (WADI) SUDAN 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> 6265000 1917 3048 226 DONGOLA/DUNQULAH SUDAN 1971 2007 >>> -999 -999 >>> >>> In this case, I'd say the 2003-2007 additions to Ed Dueim should be >>> deleted. Now if we just had a data format with full historical >>> metadata.. >>> >>>> I presume you can set these to missing from Jan 2003 onwards? Or just >>>> set the outliers to missing? cc'd to Phil for his suggestion... we >>>> need something quick and easy, but defendable! They are so extreme >>>> relative to the standard deviation that these two particular ones >>>> cannot really be left as they are. >>>> >>>> There are also many other positive and negative vap anomalies >>>> (especially post 2003, but also some pre 2003) that seem dubious (5 to >>>> 10 hPa, compared with the vap standard deviation which is not far from >>>> 1 hPa in most places (well, 0.5 to 2 hPa). I haven't bothered to list >>>> the locations/years/months of these strange values because they >>>> typically last only 1 month and they are mostly in regions of the >>>> world with more dense observations and hence spatial averaging tends >>>> to reduce the anomalies rather quickly. The reason for picking out >>>> the Gabon and Sudan ones is that they seem to be affecting many months >>>> and also in regions with less dense networks and hence 1 station >>>> severely affects an entire national-average (and indeed neighbouring >>>> countries too). However I've cc'd this to Phil to get his opinion on >>>> how much time should be spent on these issues. >>> >>> I'd say that if these countries are anything to go by, the VAP database >>> needs a spring clean! >>> >>>> Note that it isn't all bad news :-) There were many dubious looking >>>> spikes in CRU TS 2.1 vap (even in "well-observed" countries like Spain >>>> and Portugal) that have improved in CRU TS 3.0 vap! (see the attached >>>> time series). >>> >>> Cool. >>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> P.S. I've just realised something... shouldn't these anomalies have >>>> been ignored if they are > 3 (or is it 4) S.D. from the normal? Or >>>> maybe that option isn't used for vap? >>> >>> As I stated previously - the 3 SD limit's applied by the anomaly >>> program and so will be in force for both 'real' and synthetic vap. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>>> >>>> At 15:09 21/04/2008, you wrote: >>>>> Hi Tim, >>>>> >>>>> WET almost done; should be finished tonight (will complete it >>>>> remotely). Note that, if you're investigating it, WET uses a >>>>> percentage anomalies, I presume this is because the incoming >>>>> synthetics are PRE-derived. >>>>> >>>>> FRS is also within reach, but has a lower priority. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Harry >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > 2594. 2008-04-23 01:12:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:12:41 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: CRU TS 3.0 to: i.harris@uea.ac.uk Hi Harry, thanks for the email re. the VAP data. Yes, go ahead and delete those 3 stations and recreate. That should, I hope, solve the main problems... and more minor problems can wait for some future time when we actually have time to worry about more minor things! Regarding the extensive and strange banding problems found in the new variable (wetdays), I think I may have found the cause. As I mentioned earlier, it is the synthetic wetdays that have the banding in them. Looking at the rd0_gts program in /cru/cruts/version_3_0/BADC_AREA/programs/idl/rd0_gts_tdm.pro which is what you used to produce the synthetic wetdays, it seems to be reading (see lines 19 and 22) gridded normals for precipitation and for wetdays from files ../norms_05_binary/glo.pre.norm and ../norms_05_binary/glo.rd0.norm Now, from the directory name (the '05') and from the code (the 720*360 on lines 18 and 21) and from the size of the files it's reading, my guess is that these are normals on a 0.5 degree grid. But the precip anomalies that you're reading (from ../prebin/) are on a 2.5 degree grid (following Tim M.'s instructions for synthetic data), and the output it produces is on a 2.5 degree grid. What will happen, therefore, is that when rd0_gts attempts to extract pre and wet (rd0) normals for all the 2.5-degree land boxes from the 0.5-degree arrays of normals, it will pick up chunks of data from just the first 1/25th part of the arrays, sometimes picking up bands of land with non-missing values, and sometimes picking up bands of ocean with missing values. That would explain the banding. The solution seems to be to alter this program to read normals on the 2.5 degree grid, assuming you have these. Presumably you do, in ../norms_25_binary/ There may be a similar problem with frost days, since frs_gts_tdm.pro seems to be reading frostday normals from ../norm_05_binary/ too. However I haven't checked the frostday data you have made, since I don't need that variable -- please don't redo frostdays (at least until you have redone vap and wetdays), I'm just noting that the current file is likely to be wrong and hence not suitable for distribution. It looks like you already read 2.5 degree normals when making synthetic vap, which is why that doesn't show this problem. The other thing to note is that the final output from rd0_gts is fractional anomalies * 100 -- i.e. (wet-wetnorm)/wetnorm) -- or you could call them percentage anomalies. I'm not sure, therefore, what you need to set synthfac to when you read these synthetic anomalies... maybe synthfac=100 rather than synthfac=10? It depends what units quick_interp_tdm2 wants to be working in. If it wants to work in percentage anomalies, then synthfac=1 (or omit synthfac) instead of 100. Presumably it needs the synthetic and actual wetday anomalies to be in the same units... looking at anomdtb.f90 (which I presume is how you made the actual station wetday anomalies) it seems (lines 490 or 504) to be multiplying fractional anomalies by 1000, which would result in percentage anomalies * 10! Not sure if this is actually what is happening since this is the first time I've looked at anomdtb.f90 and it seems fairly complicated! But it implies synthfac=0.1 might be needed! I guess we may need to use trial and error to find the right value for synthfac. I'd start with synthfac=100 since I think the values showed too little variability with synthfac=10 -- however this may all change when the banding problem is solved! Basically... good luck! Cheers Tim 3340. 2008-04-23 07:59:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:59:26 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: CRU TS 3.0 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, Thanks again for all your efforts. Maybe you'll be able to write the paper as well! I did start 9 months ago, so have a few pages. I always thought this ought to have been much easier than it seems to have been. Very good that Douglas will do the DTR/Cloud work if you can get the support. I just wish that Harry had more of a feel for what he's been doing. I should have gotten Harry to produce more results as he was doing the original work. I assumed he'd gotten things right, as I thought it was just a matter of getting Tim M's programs to work. He ought to have looked at the fortran rather than Tim M's comment lines. Cheers Phil > Hi Harry, > > thanks for the email re. the VAP data. Yes, go ahead and delete those 3 > stations and recreate. That should, I hope, solve the main problems... > and more minor problems can wait for some future time when we actually > have time to worry about more minor things! > > Regarding the extensive and strange banding problems found in the new > variable (wetdays), I think I may have found the cause. As I mentioned > earlier, it is the synthetic wetdays that have the banding in them. > > Looking at the rd0_gts program in > > /cru/cruts/version_3_0/BADC_AREA/programs/idl/rd0_gts_tdm.pro > > which is what you used to produce the synthetic wetdays, it seems to be > reading (see lines 19 and 22) gridded normals for precipitation and for > wetdays from files > > ../norms_05_binary/glo.pre.norm > > and > > ../norms_05_binary/glo.rd0.norm > > Now, from the directory name (the '05') and from the code (the 720*360 on > lines 18 and 21) and from the size of the files it's reading, my guess is > that these are normals on a 0.5 degree grid. But the precip anomalies > that you're reading (from ../prebin/) are on a 2.5 degree grid (following > Tim M.'s instructions for synthetic data), and the output it produces is > on a 2.5 degree grid. > > What will happen, therefore, is that when rd0_gts attempts to extract pre > and wet (rd0) normals for all the 2.5-degree land boxes from the > 0.5-degree arrays of normals, it will pick up chunks of data from just the > first 1/25th part of the arrays, sometimes picking up bands of land with > non-missing values, and sometimes picking up bands of ocean with missing > values. That would explain the banding. > > The solution seems to be to alter this program to read normals on the 2.5 > degree grid, assuming you have these. Presumably you do, in > ../norms_25_binary/ > > There may be a similar problem with frost days, since frs_gts_tdm.pro > seems to be reading frostday normals from ../norm_05_binary/ too. However > I haven't checked the frostday data you have made, since I don't need that > variable -- please don't redo frostdays (at least until you have redone > vap and wetdays), I'm just noting that the current file is likely to be > wrong and hence not suitable for distribution. > > It looks like you already read 2.5 degree normals when making synthetic > vap, which is why that doesn't show this problem. > > The other thing to note is that the final output from rd0_gts is > fractional anomalies * 100 -- i.e. (wet-wetnorm)/wetnorm) -- or you could > call them percentage anomalies. I'm not sure, therefore, what you need to > set synthfac to when you read these synthetic anomalies... maybe > synthfac=100 rather than synthfac=10? It depends what units > quick_interp_tdm2 wants to be working in. If it wants to work in > percentage anomalies, then synthfac=1 (or omit synthfac) instead of 100. > Presumably it needs the synthetic and actual wetday anomalies to be in the > same units... looking at anomdtb.f90 (which I presume is how you made the > actual station wetday anomalies) it seems (lines 490 or 504) to be > multiplying fractional anomalies by 1000, which would result in percentage > anomalies * 10! Not sure if this is actually what is happening since this > is the first time I've looked at anomdtb.f90 and it seems fairly > complicated! But it implies synthfac=0.1 might be needed! I guess we may > need to use trial and error to find the right value for synthfac. I'd > start with synthfac=100 since I think the values showed too little > variability with synthfac=10 -- however this may all change when the > banding problem is solved! > > Basically... good luck! > > Cheers > > Tim > > > > 1434. 2008-04-23 08:38:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:38:30 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU TS 3.0 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, On 23 Apr 2008, at 01:12, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Harry, > > thanks for the email re. the VAP data. Yes, go ahead and delete those > 3 > stations and recreate. That should, I hope, solve the main problems... > and more minor problems can wait for some future time when we actually > have time to worry about more minor things! > > Regarding the extensive and strange banding problems found in the new > variable (wetdays), I think I may have found the cause. As I mentioned > earlier, it is the synthetic wetdays that have the banding in them. > > Looking at the rd0_gts program in > > /cru/cruts/version_3_0/BADC_AREA/programs/idl/rd0_gts_tdm.pro > > which is what you used to produce the synthetic wetdays, it seems to be > reading (see lines 19 and 22) gridded normals for precipitation and for > wetdays from files > > ../norms_05_binary/glo.pre.norm > > and > > ../norms_05_binary/glo.rd0.norm > > Now, from the directory name (the '05') and from the code (the 720*360 > on > lines 18 and 21) and from the size of the files it's reading, my guess > is > that these are normals on a 0.5 degree grid. But the precip anomalies > that you're reading (from ../prebin/) are on a 2.5 degree grid > (following > Tim M.'s instructions for synthetic data), and the output it produces > is > on a 2.5 degree grid. > > What will happen, therefore, is that when rd0_gts attempts to extract > pre > and wet (rd0) normals for all the 2.5-degree land boxes from the > 0.5-degree arrays of normals, it will pick up chunks of data from just > the > first 1/25th part of the arrays, sometimes picking up bands of land > with > non-missing values, and sometimes picking up bands of ocean with > missing > values. That would explain the banding. > > The solution seems to be to alter this program to read normals on the > 2.5 > degree grid, assuming you have these. Presumably you do, in > ../norms_25_binary/ Aha. Well I did clock that at the time, but I just assumed it was doing something clever.. obviously not. > There may be a similar problem with frost days, since frs_gts_tdm.pro > seems to be reading frostday normals from ../norm_05_binary/ too. > However > I haven't checked the frostday data you have made, since I don't need > that > variable -- please don't redo frostdays (at least until you have redone > vap and wetdays), I'm just noting that the current file is likely to be > wrong and hence not suitable for distribution. > > It looks like you already read 2.5 degree normals when making synthetic > vap, which is why that doesn't show this problem. > > The other thing to note is that the final output from rd0_gts is > fractional anomalies * 100 -- i.e. (wet-wetnorm)/wetnorm) -- or you > could > call them percentage anomalies. I'm not sure, therefore, what you > need to > set synthfac to when you read these synthetic anomalies... maybe > synthfac=100 rather than synthfac=10? It depends what units > quick_interp_tdm2 wants to be working in. If it wants to work in > percentage anomalies, then synthfac=1 (or omit synthfac) instead of > 100. > Presumably it needs the synthetic and actual wetday anomalies to be in > the > same units... looking at anomdtb.f90 (which I presume is how you made > the > actual station wetday anomalies) it seems (lines 490 or 504) to be > multiplying fractional anomalies by 1000, which would result in > percentage > anomalies * 10! Not sure if this is actually what is happening since > this > is the first time I've looked at anomdtb.f90 and it seems fairly > complicated! Indeed - that was the source of the first batch of precip problems (low variability). The program does correct the scaling when it writes the output files though. > But it implies synthfac=0.1 might be needed! I guess we may > need to use trial and error to find the right value for synthfac. I'd > start with synthfac=100 since I think the values showed too little > variability with synthfac=10 -- however this may all change when the > banding problem is solved! Yes - one step at a time. > Basically... good luck! Heh. Looking forward to it.. Cheers Harry 5307. 2008-04-24 10:41:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:41:18 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: CRU TS 3.0 to: Gerard van der Schrier Hi Gerard, On 24 Apr 2008, at 08:49, Gerard van der Schrier wrote: > Hi Tim & Harry, > > Would you happen to have information at which gridpoints the CRU TS > 3.0 data are relaxed to climatology? Ahhh. Great question! We do have 'station files' - these give the number of stations theoretically contributing to each cell. Where it's a zero, and it's also a land cell, you'll get (full) relaxation to the climatology. However, that won't show you 'strong relaxation', I'm not sure if your current approach isn't the most pragmatic! However, I'm happy to make the relevant station files available to you: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~harry/for_gerard/ Counts of stations actually IN each cell: cru_ts_3_00.1901.2006.tmp.cstn.dat.gz Counts of stations theoretically contributing to each cell: cru_ts_3_00.1901.2006.tmp.stn.dat.gz NetCDF versions of the above: cru_ts_3_00.1901.2006.tmp.cstn.nc.gz cru_ts_3_00.1901.2006.tmp.stn.nc.gz Cheers Harry > > I'm working on the PDSI now, and the self-calibrating aspect of the > algorithm does not really like climatology. When a gridbox is > strongly relaxed towards climatology, only a very minor deviation > from climatology makes the algorithm think that a major dourght or > pluvial is happening! > > I've "solved" these problems by calculating standard deviation for > each gridbox, and then specifying that if the standard deviation is > below some threshold, then I skip calculating the PDSI. > > I guess that the gridboxes which are relaxed strongest to > climatology are also in the areas where the PDSI does not make > sense anyway, like deserts or tundra...... > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 4837. 2008-04-24 15:02:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Apr 24 15:02:43 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Abnormal normals! to: Ian Harris Hi Harry, smoothing out the peaks might account for it, but (for pre) it seems too large a reduction. Can you calculate the mean of each of the normals files, since presumably the mean should be unaltered by such smoothing. Cheers Tim At 12:09 24/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, Sit down.. it's the 'scaling' business again! I've examined the rd0 and pre normals at half degree and two-half degree binary, and half-degree ascii (the clim files we publish). Here are the results and my interpretations: FILE MIN MAX UNITS glo25.rd0.6190 0 303 days*10 glo25.pre.6190 0 391 ??? glo.rd0.norm 0 310 days*10 glo.pre.norm 0 1244 mm clim.6190.lan.wet.grid 0 3090 days*100 clim.6190.lan.pre.grid 0 12430 mm*10 As you can see, there is a big difference between the precip normals over all three versions! The best interpretation I can place on the 2.5-deg binary normals ('???') is that the much larger area is 'softening' the impact of individual high-recording stations.. what do you think? We can see from the rd0_gts_tdm.pro program that they are treated as days*10 (rd0) and mm (pre), assuming natural units are in play: rd0norm(nland)=(rd0norm(nland)/10)>0.49 prenorm(nland)=prenorm(nland)>5.0 I wonder if the squashing of variability in the 2.5 degree grid is causing the low variability you're seeing in the output? I will try running with half-degree synthetics to give us a comparison. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1130. 2008-04-24 19:31:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:31:25 +0100 from: "Stott, Peter" subject: Record breaking years to: Hi Phil, I did an interview for More or Less on Radio 4 today on global average temperatures. I hope I didn't mess up too much - David was away so couldn't do it. Apparently James Annan has made a bet with David Whitehouse that we will/won't have a record breaking year by 2011 (including 2011). Problem with these records of course is that we don't know the global average temperature that precisely, with uncertainties of order 0.1C. So the question becomes whether we should be talking about record breaking years at all, geiven that we're uncertain of the ranking order of the years, or at least trying to communicate the uncertainties in the way we present these numbers a bit more. Anyway you must have thought a fair bit about this ! Peter 4920. 2008-04-25 08:34:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:34:38 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: cru ts 3.0 wetdays to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, On 25 Apr 2008, at 01:11, Tim Osborn wrote: Harry and Phil, More late-night checking! I know that feeling.. dangerous when combined with these programs, you could enter another dimension entirely! although it is not commented to say so, my checking of rd0_gts_tdm.pro and rd0cal.pro (both from /cru/cruts/version_3_0/BADC_AREA/) against New et al. (2000) strongly suggests that: (i) the 2.5 degree rainday normals are needed in units of days*10 They are (min 0, max 303). (ii) the 2.5 degree precip normals are needed in units of mm (I prefer to say mm/month, but since these are monthly totals, mm is the same as mm/month) They are undetermined at the present time, though the nearest guess is mm (min 0, max 391). (iii) the 2.5 degree precip timeseries must NOT BE ANOMALIES and are expected to be in units of mm (I prefer to say mm/month). Now here we enter the Twilight Zone™ :-) The grid program reads the precip timeseries in a format peculiar to anomdtb.f90, the anomalising program. However, I've found an option in the original version of anomdtb that looks like it might dump the raw values.. I'll try it out. (iv) the output is 2.5 degree grid of: 100*(synth_wetday - wetdaynormal)/wetdaynormal i.e., percentage anomalies of synthetic wetdays. As expected. (iv) there is a error in the programming logic that means that any months in the time series with zero precip will be assigned a zero percentage anomaly for wetdays, which is clearly wrong (unless the wetday normal is zero). If you have a location / month of the year with non-zero normal precip and non-zero normal wetdays, and you happen to get one completely dry month, it will incorrectly estimate that the wetdays are the same as normal (i.e., wetday anomaly is zero). How can there be normal wetdays when there is no precipitation! No idea how often you get zero precip in regions with non-zero normals, but surely some arid-ish areas must have this frequently. In addition to this, I still think, from your calculations Harry of mean values, that the 2.5 degree precip normals are wrong. But I haven't had time to check yet. So... in terms of units, do (i) and (ii) match the files that are being used? See above The prebin files definitely do not match requirement (iii), since I've inspected them and they are anomalies while the program requires absolute monthly precipitation. Since we are also reading in the precip normals (though see note above re. concern over whether the 2.5 degree normals are wrong/right!), we could convert the prebin anomalies into absolutes within rd0_gts_tdm.pro. But we would need to know what units the prebin anomalies are in. Are they: (p-pnorm)/pnorm or 10 times this, or 100 times this, or something different? I've inspected the files and it's rather hard to tell! Better is to work it out from the program that produced them. They're produced by the IDL gridding suite (quick_interp_tdm2.pro). This reads the precip anomalies (output from anomdtb.f90 and the same ones used when creating the precip grids). They are multiplied by 'anomfac' on the way in, and 'binfac' on the way out (when gridded). We've been running with no anomfac and binfac=10. So, let's backtrack to anomdtb. This prompts the user for the 3-character parameter code, then looks it up with CheckVariSuffix to get the appropriate 'Factor'. If you look in the tail end of grimfiles.f90 you'll see the list, the Factor for 'pre' is 0.1. It also checks for 'pre' or 'wet' and invokes percentage anomalies for them, setting the flag QAnomPercent to 1. Then, later in the program it uses the Factor - but divides by it! So units are then mm*100? We then get the percentage anomaly calculation that threw me before: CourierDataA(XAYear,XMonth,XAStn) = nint(1000.0*((real(DataA(XAYear,XMonth,XAStn)) / & real(NormMean(XMonth,XAStn)))-1.0)) So the anomalies at this stage are in mm*1000? The final writing of the data invokes Factor again, this time as a multiplier! So I would say the end result is percentage anomalies of mm*100. But this is very confusing, (a) because percentage anomalies ARE very confusing, and (b) because of the labyrinthine nature of these program suites. Taking all the above, I'd have to say the precip gridded binary anomalies are in mm*1000! Which can't be right. meh.. going for a shower, more later. Cheers Harry So we're still someway off with getting wetdays done. I'm not certain that rd0_gts_tdm.pro ever worked, given our earlier finding that it was reading the wrong resolution normals and now the problems above. Perhaps Tim M. had a different version hidden away somewhere?! I have a better formula for making synthetic wetdays from precip than that which Mark New came up with and which Tim's programs are trying to use. I had thought, given time constraints, to leave implementing that till a later time, but now I wonder whether to scrap the current synthetic wetdays and use the improved formula! We'd still need to know the answers to the above questions re. the units of the various files that we're using though, so the next task is to answer them. Cheers Tim 4208. 2008-04-25 12:36:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:36:21 +0100 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" , "Stephens, A (Ag)" , "Kay Jenkinson" , "Anna Steynor" , "Lawrence, BN (Bryan)" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" , "Richard Westaway" , "Roger Street" Kathryn A few late comments and comments on comments. 1 We should not use the term "land" in the prob proj report - the projections are for the atmosphere (over land). Also this one should include the word "change" which it doesnt now ("climate change projections"). Agree with those who said delete UK and 21st century as redundant. Dont mind it being called Summary Report or Briefing, but dont say scenarios on this or the UG as we agreed with Roger to ban this word. 2 I think it should be very clear from the title that UG is not just a getting started thing. Its main purpose is to talk about limitations in the projections and WG and the implications for users. 3 Language - "as likley as not" doesnt work in key findings statements (think about it) so please lets go for "central estimate". PDC and CDC - just probability distribution and cumulative distribution will be enough, we are generally talking about the distribution itself, not the curve it makes on a graph. I agree with Brians comment that it is more important to have scientific sense than user buy-in, so would strongly caution against asking UP to vote. Cheers Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] Sent: 25 April 2008 11:44 To: Jenkins, Geoff; Stephens, A (Ag); Stephanie Ferguson; Kay Jenkinson; Anna Steynor; Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David; Lowe, Jason; Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD; Elkington, Mark; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Callaghan, SA (Sarah); Dye, Stephen SR (CEFAS) Subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions Importance: High Hi all, Thanks very much for your comments on these decisions. I have made a few changes as requested and attach a revised copy for sign off. Two outstanding issues are the reports titles- UKCIP not keen; and whether we give suggestion to the SG for the terminology or give them a range and ask them to vote. On the latter point, I would rather give them suggestions and ask for anyone with serious reservations to speak up; I think this will make it more likely to gain a consensus decision which I would prefer. If there are serious resevations voiced, we can then take a vote. Is this ok? On the former, the title suggestions are from me, based on the comments I have received which are attached for info. I have tried to bring into account the points about people new to UKCIP08 needing more information on what is in each publication; the feeling that the Getting Started title doesn't reflect the full purpose of the guidance, which is also to give background information on the limitations of the scenarios etc; and to bring out that this is just for the UK. However I'm happy for UKCIP to try and come up with some better ones if they want to have a go; but would need these by Monday and I want to get these decisions out for agreement (Geoff needs to know his formats for key findings now in particular.). BTW I have ignored comments on the style of the covers as these were agreed months ago and although some of the people who have commented are new to the project, I didn't feel the level of feeling was large enough to warrant re-opening the issue. The majority of the SG are happy with the covers. Grateful for comments on these issues today. Thanks! Kathryn 3578. 2008-04-25 12:55:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , "'Susan Solomon'" , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Frank Wentz , ssolomon@frii.com date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:55:28 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology] to: Steve Sherwood Dear Steve, Thanks very much for these comments. They will be very helpful in responding to Reviewer #1. Best regards, Ben Steve Sherwood wrote: > Ben, > > It sounds like the reviewer was fair. If (s)he misunderstood or didn't > catch things, the length of the manuscript may have been a factor, and I > am definitely sympathetic to that particular complaint. >> >> CONCERN #1: Assumption of an AR-1 model for regression residuals. > I also am no great fan of AR1 models parameterized by the lag-1 > variance, because if the time step is too short they can go greatly > astray at longer lags where it matters. But if you choose the > persistence parameter to give a good fit to the entire autocorrelation > function--i.e. make sure it decays to 1/e at about the right lag--it > should work fine. I suggest trying this to see whether it changes > anything much, and if not, leaving it at that. I think that for simply > generating confidence intervals on a scalar measure there is no reason > to go to higher-order AR processes, as a matter of principle. > >> CONCERN #2: No "attempt to combine data across model runs." > The only point of doing this would seem to be to test whether there are > any individual models that can be falsified by the data. It is a > judgment call whether to go down this road--my judgment would be, no, > that is a subject for a model evaluation/intercomparison paper. The > question at issue here is whether GCMs or the CMIP3 forcings share some > common flaw; the implication of the Douglass et al paper is that they > do, and that future climate may therefore venture outside the range > simulated by GCMs. The appropriate null hypothesis is that the observed > data record could with nonnegligible probability have been produced by a > climate model---not that it could be reproduced by every climate model. > >> >> The Reviewer seems to be arguing that the main advantage of his >> approach #2 (use of ensemble-mean model trends in significance >> testing) relative to our paired trends test (his approach #1) is that >> non-independence of tests is less of an issue with approach #2. I'm >> not sure whether I agree. Are results from tests involving GFDL CM2.0 >> and GFDL CM2.0 temperature data truly "independent" given that both >> models were forced with the same historical changes in anthropogenic >> and natural external forcings? The same concerns apply to the high- >> and low-resolution versions of the MIROC model, the GISS models, etc. > (S)he seems to have been referring to the fact that all models are > tested with the same data. I also fail to see how any change in > approach would affect this issue. >> >> I am puzzled by some of the comments the Reviewer has made at the top >> of page 3 of his review. I guess the Reviewer is making these comments >> in the context of the pair-wise tests described on page 2. Crucially, >> the comment that we should use "...the standard error if testing the >> average model trend" (and by "standard error" he means DCPS07's >> sigma{SE}) IS INCONSISTENT with the Reviewer's approach #3, which >> involves use of the inter-model standard deviation in testing the >> average model trend. > I also am puzzled. The standard error is appropriate if you have a > large ensemble of observed time series, but not if you have only one. > Computing the standard error of the model mean is useless when you have > no good estimate of the mean of the real world to compare it to. The > essential mistake of DCPS was to assume that the single real-world time > series was a perfect estimator of the mean. >> >> And I disagree with the Reviewer's comments regarding the superfluous >> nature of Section 6. The Reviewer states that, "when simulating from a >> know (statistical) model... the test statistics should by definition >> give the correct answer. The whole point of Section 6 is that the >> DCPS07 consistency test does NOT give the correct answer when applied >> to randomly-generated data! > Maybe there is a more compact way to show this? >> In order to satisfy the Reviewer's curiosity, I'm perfectly willing to >> repeat the simulations described in Section 6 with a higher-order AR >> model. However, I don't like the idea of simulation of synthetic >> volcanoes, etc. This would be a huge time sink, and would not help to >> illustrate or clarify the statistical mistakes in DCPS07. > I wouldn't advise any of that. > > -SS > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 737. 2008-04-25 15:05:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 25 15:05:11 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: figure to: Rob Wilson Sorry could not chat Rob - queue of advisees trying to choose options. Attached the paper I mentioned - I would appreciate if you do not pass on as it is not in finished form. See later section on Briffa Bodge - nothing like messing up analyses and then correcting them . Two papers for the price of one! hope this helps - cheers Keith At 14:18 25/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, don't forget the figure - it would be good to include it in my talk thanks Rob -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [1]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 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2724. 2008-04-25 15:37:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 25 15:37:42 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: problem with figures - or not? to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Tom was asked to send these Figures to Rob - for a seminar (well actually just the Briffa Bodge Figure) but I now notice that there is a problem with data and axes not being aligned - do you think Malcolm will have a similar problem? Can you resend the 2 Figures relating to The Briffa bodge back to Rob (he needs them for a meeting) directly if there is a problem (Rob Wilson ) cheers Keith PS beers on your desk are from me for help other day cheers -- 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/ 4021. 2008-04-25 16:11:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Apr 25 16:11:28 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: rd0 programs to: Ian Harris ok -- I'll make some new 2.5 degree normals files for pre, in Mark's binary format so they should be able to be "slotted in". will let you know when they're ready. Cheers Tim At 15:57 25/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, There are two rd0 programs. Here's an extract from my big READ_ME diary/file, from a year or so ago: 20. Secondary Variables - Eeeeeek!! Yes the time has come to attack what evenTim seems to have been unhappy about (reading between the lines). To assist me I have 12 lines in the gridding ReadMe file.. so par for the course. Almost immediately I hit that familiar feeling of ambiguity: the textsuggests using the following three IDL programs: frs_gts_tdm.pro rd0_gts_tdm.pro vap_gts_anom.pro So.. when I look in the code/idl/pro/ folder, what do I find? Well: 3447 Jan 22 2004 fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/frs_gts_anom.pro 2774 Jun 12 2002 fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/frs_gts_tdm.pro 2917 Jan 8 2004 fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/rd0_gts_anom.pro 2355 Jun 12 2002 fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/rd0_gts_tdm.pro 5880 Jan 8 2004 fromdpe1a/code/idl/pro/vap_gts_anom.pro In other words, the *anom.pro scripts are much more recent than the *tdmscripts. There is no way of knowing which Tim used to produce the current public files. The scripts differ internally but - you guessed it! - the descriptions at the start are identical. WHAT IS GOING ON? Given that the'README_GRIDDING.txt' file is dated 'Mar 30 2004' we will have to assumethat the originally-stated scripts must be used. I've just reviewed the rd0_gts_anom.pro file, and sure enough, it is designed to read precip anomalies. specifically, it contains this line in both the 61-90 and full sections: pregrd(nland)=((pregrd(nland)/100.0)+1.0)*prenorm(nland) ; make pre anom into abs There is nothing comparable in rd0_gts_tdm.pro. So.. I'll have a play with this! Bearing in mind that the precip normals are probably up the creek.. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2090. 2008-04-26 08:05:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:05:29 +0100 from: Tom Melvin subject: Bodge Figures to: rjsw@st-andrews.ac.uk Rob, Attached are the Bodge figures. (Alternative versions as I have just converted to a new compiler and graphics display) Sometimes they are not disp[layed correctly in WORD (as Keith discovered) but work otherwise. Tom Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Rob.zip" Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 5176. 2008-04-26 09:12:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:12:25 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: Bodge Figures to: Tom Melvin thanks Tom, I must commend you on your use of the colour black. I always needed sun glasses for the green!! :-) Your work will get a mention in Poland. regards Rob Tom Melvin wrote: Rob, Attached are the Bodge figures. (Alternative versions as I have just converted to a new compiler and graphics display) Sometimes they are not disp[layed correctly in WORD (as Keith discovered) but work otherwise. 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. 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 [1]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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1623. 2008-04-28 10:44:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Apr 28 10:44:32 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: tadaa to: Ian Harris Hi -- correlations look good, 1961-1990 means look good, but amplitude of anomalies still considerably out. Not a simple factor of 10 either. But perhaps a combination of factor of 10 for synth and correct factor for real observations? Can I have permission to read (i) the new contents of rd0syn (presumably these are the new synthetics?) and (iii) rd0_gts_anom.pro in the BADC_AREA (presumably this is the prog you are now using to combine/grid things?). Cheers Tim At 23:27 27/04/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim The latest version of WET (blimey, it's worse than Miscrosoft Service Packs) is in the usual place: /cru/cruts/version_3_0/secondaries/wet/wet_final/ Please say it looks OK! Well actually scaling isn't a problem, I accept that the anom version of the synthetics generator might produce different;y scaled output, I just want it to look realistic! Cheers H 3882. 2008-04-28 11:44:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jenkins, Geoff" , Ag Stephens , Stephanie Ferguson , Kay Jenkinson , Anna Steynor , Bryan Lawrence , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , Chris Kilsby , Colin Harpham , "Lowe, Jason" , "Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD" , "Elkington, Mark" , Phil James , Phil Jones , Richard Westaway , Roger Street , "Callaghan, SA (Sarah)" , "Dye, Stephen SR (CEFAS)" date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:44:02 +0100 from: David Sexton subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (GA)" Hi, I have some comments on the language: I am bit worried that giving the users the chance to vote on terminology is going to generate ambiguous terms and more confusion. e.g. for "50% probability level" is more accurately the level at which it is "as likely to be below this value as above it" rather than "as likely as not". The difference in the two statements is that the first implies an inequality, whereas the second implies an equality. The fact that people are voting for their favourite term and not all agreeing suggests to me that these terms mean different things to different people and that implies confusion and ambiguity to me. So I would favour "50th percentile" because it is accurate, unambiguous, it will have to be defined in the glossary, and it will force users to appreciate something about probabilistic projections. Sir Brian did suggest that it was important to retain "accuracy" in the terminology and not sacrifice it for the sake of "democracy". I think that comment should be given a lot of weight. Cheers, David On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:44 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks very much for your comments on these decisions. I have made a > few changes as requested and attach a revised copy for sign off. > > Two outstanding issues are the reports titles- UKCIP not keen; and > whether we give suggestion to the SG for the terminology or give them > a range and ask them to vote. > > On the latter point, I would rather give them suggestions and ask for > anyone with serious reservations to speak up; I think this will make > it more likely to gain a consensus decision which I would prefer. If > there are serious resevations voiced, we can then take a vote. Is > this ok? > > On the former, the title suggestions are from me, based on the > comments I have received which are attached for info. I have tried to > bring into account the points about people new to UKCIP08 needing more > information on what is in each publication; the feeling that the > Getting Started title doesn't reflect the full purpose of the > guidance, which is also to give background information on the > limitations of the scenarios etc; and to bring out that this is just > for the UK. However I'm happy for UKCIP to try and come up with some > better ones if they want to have a go; but would need these by Monday > and I want to get these decisions out for agreement (Geoff needs to > know his formats for key findings now in particular.). > > BTW I have ignored comments on the style of the covers as these were > agreed months ago and although some of the people who have commented > are new to the project, I didn't feel the level of feeling was large > enough to warrant re-opening the issue. The majority of the SG are > happy with the covers. > > Grateful for comments on these issues today. > > Thanks! > > Kathryn > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: Jenkins, Geoff [mailto:geoff.jenkins@metoffice.gov.uk] > Sent: 25 April 2008 10:09 > To: Stephens, A (Ag); Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Stephanie Ferguson; > Kay Jenkinson; Anna Steynor; Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Butt, Adrian > (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David; Geoff Jenkins; > Lowe, Jason; Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD; Elkington, Mark; Phil James; > Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Callaghan, SA (Sarah); > Dye, Stephen SR (CEFAS) > Subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions > > > OK, but we must remember that the change in frequency of an historical > event must always be given in probabilistic terms, and this may make > some statements so vague as to be useless. Take a made up example for > the 2006 summer heavy rainfall events (Tewkesbury etc). The PDFs show > that the wettest day of the year can change between -50% to +30%. So > we could have a statement saying "2003 heavy rainfall events could > become 20% less frequent by the 2080s, with a range of > uncertainty between half as frequent and 30% more frequent" > Cheers > Geoff > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephens, A (Ag) [mailto:A.Stephens@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 24 April 2008 21:57 > To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Stephanie Ferguson; Kay > Jenkinson; Anna Steynor; Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Butt, Adrian > (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; Sexton, David; Geoff > Jenkins; Lowe, Jason; Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD; Elkington, > Mark; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; > Callaghan, SA (Sarah); Stephen Dye > Subject: RE: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions > > > All, > > Regarding the Decisions doc, my only comment is on the > analogues: > > do we need to decide on a subset of analogues/will this depend > on what the actual results look like/ will we do all of them > if they work? > > I think that the Guidance should include a discussion that > some people find it useful to refer to historical analogues > when looking at future conditions and thresholds. The guidance > can provide a table of what weather conditions characterised a > given historical event (such as a heatwave) indicating to > users how they could run the Threshold Detector to look for > such an event. > > I have no other comments. > > Thanks, > > Ag > > > ______________________________________________________________ > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] > Sent: 24 April 2008 09:21 > To: Stephanie Ferguson; Kay Jenkinson; Stephens, A (Ag); Anna > Steynor; Lawrence, BN (Bryan); Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris > Kilsby; Colin Harpham; David Sexton; Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, > Kathryn (CEOSA); Jason Lowe; Marsh, AKP (Kevin) - SSTD; Mark > Elkington; Phil James; Phil Jones; Richard Westaway; Roger > Street; Callaghan, SA (Sarah); Stephen Dye > Subject: UKCIP08 SG and UP decisions and actions > Importance: High > > > > Hi all, > > I'm about to rush out to an all day meeting but knocked up > some decisions and actions from Tuesday's meeting on the train > this morning, which are attached along with the minutes. I > can explain my reasoning but not had time this morning to- so > apologies if these seem a bit random- they are based on > comments and some sort of logic. Suggest that you all have a > look and if there's anything you strongly disagree with let > the group know, and hopefully we can agree these by close > tomorrow. > > Very quickly- report titles based on series of comments; > language on most popular user requests and maintaining > consistency; key findings from Geoff's suggested way forward > after meeting; website Steph knows all about! > > > Kind Regards, > > Kathryn > > <> < minute.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. > email message attachment > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:44 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: > > Hi Kathryn > > > > > > > > Thanks for the alert of the new date/venue for the launch. > > > > > > > > In relation to the reports > > > > > > > > I am happy to leave others with better understanding of the contents > > to come up with suitable titles but have given a few thoughts below. > > > > But I would be keen to see drafts of the back pages for the reports > > - I recall last time that while the report itself and logo’s were > > all fine there was a little to and fro-ing on the media release. > > > > > > > > My top line thoughts on the titles > > > > I do support the idea that they should be as simple and concise as > > possible to aid the general reader. > > > > If - when the titles are to be presented just as text - they will > > always be referred to as UKCIP08 - Climate projections etc then I > > suggest further reference to the UK scope of > > > > the work is not required. > > > > Getting Started with UKCIP08 - I do still like - `Dummies Guide to > > getting the most out of UKCIP08’ > > > > > > > > Cheers Alison > > > > Alison Caldecott > > Climate Change Communications > > Mobile: 07920 549743 > > Scottish Government > > 1- G Dockside > > Victoria Quay > > Edinburgh EH6 6 QQ > > Tel: 0131 244 7972 > > Fax: 0131 244 0211 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > From: Winter GP (Guy) > > Sent: 15 April 2008 11:39 > > To: 'Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)' > > Cc: 'Stephanie Ferguson'; Caldecott A (Alison) (CCA) > > Subject: RE: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > > > > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > > > Titles – Good first go! Need to keep simple but make it clear what > > each report covers. There are countless permutations but I offer > > (changes to UKCIP draft shown in red) > > > > > > > > A) UK Land (as opposed to Marine!) Climate projections for > > 21st century > > > > UK Marine and Coastal projections for the 21st century > > > > The UKCIP08 briefing report on UK climate projections for 21st > > century > > > > Getting started with UKCIP08 UK climate projections for 21st > > century. > > > > > > > > B) OR – could try 2 lines with general Title then something like > > Volume 1 – Land Based scenarios > > > > > > > > UKCIP08 climate scenarios for 21 century > > > > Volume 1 - Land Projections > > > > > > > > > > > > Ditto - > > marine and coastal projections(Volume 2??) > > > > Ditto - > > briefing report (Volume 3) > > > > Ditto - > > getting started (maybe should be Volume 1!!) > > > > > > > > Having started I realise how difficult this is! > > > > > > > > Guy > > > > > > > > > > > > Guy Winter > > Climate Change Division > > 1G (North) > > Victoria Quay > > Edinburgh > > EH6 6QQ > > > > Tel: 0131 244 0196 > > Fax: 0131 244 0211 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > From:Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] > > Sent: 11 April 2008 16:25 > > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Brian Hoskins; > > Britton, Nicola (WAG-EPC); Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); C > > Goodess; Chris Baker; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Debra Heath; Geoff > > Jenkins; Geoff Jenkins; Gosia Gayer; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); > > Jason Lowe; Linda Livingston; Maeve O'donoghue; Maresh, Jennifer > > (CEOSA); Marguerite Gascoine; Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Phil James; > > Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Rachel Warren; > > Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Ross Hunter; Rowan Sutton; Sear, Chris > > (CEOSA); Stephen Dye; UKCIP ; Vicky Pope; Warrilow, David (CEOSA); > > Winter GP (Guy) > > Cc: Kay Jenkinson; Stephanie Ferguson; Chris West > > Subject: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > > > > This email has been received from an external party and > > > > has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. > > > > ******************************************************************* > > > > Dear all, > > > > We now have a venue booked for the launch of UKCIP08 which is the > > London Wetland Centre at Barnes (see > > http://www.wwt.org.uk/centre/119/visit/wetlandcentre/.html). Date > > will be 20th November. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change > > Adaptation, has agreed to launch the scenarios. > > > > On another issue, we have been discussing the titles for the various > > UKCIP08 reports. Stephanie at UKCIP has kindly done some mock-ups > > of the front covers with some suggested titles that UKCIP prefer. > > I'd be grateful for comments/ alternative suggestions if any, for > > these titles! If you could get back to me before the 22nd that > > would be great. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > > > <<08 cover titles.pdf>> > > 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. > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > > This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) > > is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). > > Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of > > any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the > > intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from > > your system and inform the sender immediately by return. > > > > > > > > > > > > Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or > > recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system > > and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained > > within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish > > Government. > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > email message attachment > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:44 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: > > Kathryn > > > > > > > > Titles – Good first go! Need to keep simple but make it clear what > > each report covers. There are countless permutations but I offer > > (changes to UKCIP draft shown in red) > > > > > > > > A) UK Land (as opposed to Marine!) Climate projections for > > 21st century > > > > UK Marine and Coastal projections for the 21st century > > > > The UKCIP08 briefing report on UK climate projections for 21st > > century > > > > Getting started with UKCIP08 UK climate projections for 21st > > century. > > > > > > > > B) OR – could try 2 lines with general Title then something like > > Volume 1 – Land Based scenarios > > > > > > > > UKCIP08 climate scenarios for 21 century > > > > Volume 1 - Land Projections > > > > > > > > > > > > Ditto - > > marine and coastal projections(Volume 2??) > > > > Ditto - > > briefing report (Volume 3) > > > > Ditto - > > getting started (maybe should be Volume 1!!) > > > > > > > > Having started I realise how difficult this is! > > > > > > > > Guy > > > > > > > > > > > > Guy Winter > > Climate Change Division > > 1G (North) > > Victoria Quay > > Edinburgh > > EH6 6QQ > > > > Tel: 0131 244 0196 > > Fax: 0131 244 0211 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > From:Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > > [mailto:kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK] > > Sent: 11 April 2008 16:25 > > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Brian Hoskins; > > Britton, Nicola (WAG-EPC); Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); C > > Goodess; Chris Baker; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Debra Heath; Geoff > > Jenkins; Geoff Jenkins; Gosia Gayer; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); > > Jason Lowe; Linda Livingston; Maeve O'donoghue; Maresh, Jennifer > > (CEOSA); Marguerite Gascoine; Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Phil James; > > Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Rachel Warren; > > Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Ross Hunter; Rowan Sutton; Sear, Chris > > (CEOSA); Stephen Dye; UKCIP ; Vicky Pope; Warrilow, David (CEOSA); > > Winter GP (Guy) > > Cc: Kay Jenkinson; Stephanie Ferguson; Chris West > > Subject: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************* > > > > This email has been received from an external party and > > > > has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. > > > > ******************************************************************* > > > > Dear all, > > > > We now have a venue booked for the launch of UKCIP08 which is the > > London Wetland Centre at Barnes (see > > http://www.wwt.org.uk/centre/119/visit/wetlandcentre/.html). Date > > will be 20th November. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change > > Adaptation, has agreed to launch the scenarios. > > > > On another issue, we have been discussing the titles for the various > > UKCIP08 reports. Stephanie at UKCIP has kindly done some mock-ups > > of the front covers with some suggested titles that UKCIP prefer. > > I'd be grateful for comments/ alternative suggestions if any, for > > these titles! If you could get back to me before the 22nd that > > would be great. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > > > <<08 cover titles.pdf>> > > 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. > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > > This e-mail (and any files or other attachments transmitted with it) > > is intended solely for the attention of the addressee(s). > > Unauthorised use, disclosure, storage, copying or distribution of > > any part of this e-mail is not permitted. If you are not the > > intended recipient please destroy the email, remove any copies from > > your system and inform the sender immediately by return. > > > > > > > > > > > > Communications with the Scottish Government may be monitored or > > recorded in order to secure the effective operation of the system > > and for other lawful purposes. The views or opinions contained > > within this e-mail may not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish > > Government. > > > > > > > > ******************************************************** > > > > > > > email message attachment > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:44 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: > > Dear Colleagues > > Would appreciate your views on these titles too. > > > > I notice there is not any Defra braning on these, even though we > > fund all this. I would have thought there should be but grateful > > for Tony/Amber's advice. > > > > The climate projections one is OK, but I assume this is UK only so > > worth putting that in the title. > > The ones with UKCIP08 in the title are too obscure and rely on > > people knowing what this means - I think they need something more > > direct. > > > > Kathryn H - are you testing out with marine and coastal flooding > > colleagues too? EA? What is the process from now in terms of when > > these are finalised? > > > > Cheers > > Kathryn P > > ______________________________________________ > > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > > Sent: 11 April 2008 16:25 > > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Brian Hoskins; > > Britton, Nicola (WAG-EPC); Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); C > > Goodess; Chris Baker; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Debra Heath; Geoff > > Jenkins; Geoff Jenkins; Gosia Gayer; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); > > Jason Lowe; Linda Livingston; Maeve O'donoghue; Maresh, Jennifer > > (CEOSA); Marguerite Gascoine; Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Phil James; > > Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Rachel Warren; > > Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Ross Hunter; Rowan Sutton; Sear, Chris > > (CEOSA); Stephen Dye; UKCIP ; Vicky Pope; Warrilow, David (CEOSA); > > Winter, Guy (SEERAD) > > > > Cc: Kay Jenkinson; Stephanie Ferguson; Chris West > > Subject: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > Dear all, > > > > We now have a venue booked for the launch of UKCIP08 which is the > > London Wetland Centre at Barnes (see > > http://www.wwt.org.uk/centre/119/visit/wetlandcentre/.html). Date > > will be 20th November. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change > > Adaptation, has agreed to launch the scenarios. > > > > On another issue, we have been discussing the titles for the various > > UKCIP08 reports. Stephanie at UKCIP has kindly done some mock-ups > > of the front covers with some suggested titles that UKCIP prefer. > > I'd be grateful for comments/ alternative suggestions if any, for > > these titles! If you could get back to me before the 22nd that > > would be great. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > <<08 cover titles.pdf>> > > 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 > > > > > > > email message attachment > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:44 +0100, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: > > Thanks for the chance to comment. A few thoughts > > > > For the most part the titles are clear and concise and I like them. > > But... > > > > 'Marine and coastal projections...' - is it clear enough what the > > report will be about? Will it be about the physical environment of > > marine and coastal areas or will it be about ecosystems, fish > > populations or even people living on the coast? > > > > Not sure 'briefing report' conveys clearly what it is about. Is it a > > brief report, just a briefing (ie a summary) or a report, and if so > > then a report on what? If just a report about UKCIP08 generally then > > maybe just call it UKCIP08 > > > > Personally I don’t like any of the covers as I see them as too > > abstract. Perhaps this is intentional to get across the scientific > > nature of the content and to be more objective but I think it there > > is a surely some middle ground between polar bears on small bits of > > ice and a load of pixels. If a picture should tell a thousand words > > then I've no idea what the thousand words are from these covers. > > > > _____________________________________________ > > From: Packer, Kathryn (ACC) > > Sent: 22 April 2008 15:06 > > To: Hamza-Goodacre, Dan (ACC); Connolly, Catherine (NEE); > > McDougal, Tony (CD); Lewis, Claire (ACC); Duggan, Catherine (RPA); > > Gilmore, Amber (CD) > > > > Cc: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Warrilow, David (CEOSA); Hawley, > > Clare (ACC) > > Subject: FW: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > Dear Colleagues > > Would appreciate your views on these titles too. > > > > I notice there is not any Defra braning on these, even though we > > fund all this. I would have thought there should be but grateful > > for Tony/Amber's advice. > > > > The climate projections one is OK, but I assume this is UK only so > > worth putting that in the title. > > The ones with UKCIP08 in the title are too obscure and rely on > > people knowing what this means - I think they need something more > > direct. > > > > Kathryn H - are you testing out with marine and coastal flooding > > colleagues too? EA? What is the process from now in terms of when > > these are finalised? > > > > Cheers > > Kathryn P > > ______________________________________________ > > From: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) > > Sent: 11 April 2008 16:25 > > To: Ag Stephens; Barry McAuley; Brian Hoskins; Brian Hoskins; > > Britton, Nicola (WAG-EPC); Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); C > > Goodess; Chris Baker; Chris Kilsby; David Sexton; Debra Heath; Geoff > > Jenkins; Geoff Jenkins; Gosia Gayer; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); > > Jason Lowe; Linda Livingston; Maeve O'donoghue; Maresh, Jennifer > > (CEOSA); Marguerite Gascoine; Packer, Kathryn (ACC); Phil James; > > Phil Jones; Phil Newton; Prosser, Havard (WAG-EPC); Rachel Warren; > > Rob Wilby; Roger Street; Ross Hunter; Rowan Sutton; Sear, Chris > > (CEOSA); Stephen Dye; UKCIP ; Vicky Pope; Warrilow, David (CEOSA); > > Winter, Guy (SEERAD) > > > > Cc: Kay Jenkinson; Stephanie Ferguson; Chris West > > Subject: Launch Venue for UKCIP08, and Report Titles > > > > Dear all, > > > > We now have a venue booked for the launch of UKCIP08 which is the > > London Wetland Centre at Barnes (see > > http://www.wwt.org.uk/centre/119/visit/wetlandcentre/.html). Date > > will be 20th November. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change > > Adaptation, has agreed to launch the scenarios. > > > > On another issue, we have been discussing the titles for the various > > UKCIP08 reports. Stephanie at UKCIP has kindly done some mock-ups > > of the front covers with some suggested titles that UKCIP prefer. > > I'd be grateful for comments/ alternative suggestions if any, for > > these titles! If you could get back to me before the 22nd that > > would be great. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Kathryn > > > > > > << File: 08 cover titles.pdf >> > > 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 > > > > > > -- 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 953. 2008-04-28 13:14:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Apr 28 13:14:35 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature to: "Sear, Chris (CEOSA)" , "David Parker" , "John Kennedy" Chris, David Thompson is giving a talk here tomorrow on this. The essence of his talk will be in Nature in a few weeks time. The skeptics will make a meal of this when it comes out, but if they did their job properly (I know this is impossible!) they would have found it. It relates to a problem with SST data in the late 1940s. The problem will get corrected for at some point. SSTs need adjusting as there must be from buckets for the period from Aug45 by about 0.3 gradually reducing to a zero adjustment by about the mid-1960s. The assumption was that after WW2 they were all intake measurements and didn't need adjusting. This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won't be quite as necessary. It won't change century-scale trends. There is much more of an interesting thing going on now. With all the drifters now deployed measuring SST, the % of ships making measurements in now only about 40% of the total - whereas it was all in the late 1990s. In comparisons over the last 10 years it seems that ships measure SSTs about 0.1-0.2 higher than the drifters/buoys. As the 61-90 base period is ship based, it means recent anomalies are colder than they should be (by about 0.1 for global mean T in the last 2 years). Working on a press release with MOHC about the Nature paper. We've been though page proofs with Nature, but these don't yet include figs. I can send these when we get them. Cheers Phil At 12:55 28/04/2008, Sear, Chris (CEOSA) wrote: David, John, Phil Do you know and can comment on this work? Ta Chris -----Original Message----- From: McCloghrie, Paul (CEOSA) Sent: 28 April 2008 12:51 To: Sear, Chris (CEOSA) Subject: FW: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature variability Might be of interest if you're in Cambridge. I did some work with David Thompson years ago and he was doing time series analysis back then too! Paul -----Original Message----- From: Leverhulme Climate Symposium [[1]mailto:climate@esc.cam.ac.uk] Sent: 28 April 2008 11:58 To: climate@esc.cam.ac.uk Subject: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature variability Dear Colleagues, David Thompson of Colorado State University will be speaking in Cambridge on 22 May on 'Understanding 20th century surface temperature variability'. His talk will 'highlight a glaring but previously overlooked error in the time series of global-mean temperatures', see full abstract below. (For those too far from Cambridge to attend, this is for information and interest). The prevailing view of 20th century temperature variability is that the Earth warmed from ~1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from ~1940 to 1970, and warmed markedly from ~1970 onward. In this talk I will exploit a physically-based filtering methodology which provides an alternative interpretation of 20th century global-mean temperature variability. The results clarify the consistency between the century- long monotonic rise in greenhouse gases and global-mean temperatures, provide new insights into the climatic impact of volcanic eruptions, and highlight a glaring but previously overlooked error in the time series of global-mean temperatures. Thursday 22 May, 2.15 pm in Meeting Room 2, Centre for Mathematical Sciences (between Clarkson and Madingley Roads) 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3663. 2008-04-28 13:57:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:08 -0400 from: Andrew Revkin subject: nature paper / ocean model as short-term regional climate forecast to: trenbert@ucar.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, tom.delworth@noaa.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, cwunsch@ocean.mit.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rcurry@whoi.edu, jseveringhaus@ucsd.edu, shs@stanford.edu Hi all, I'd greatly appreciate your input (under Nature embargo rules, meaning no public discussion til Weds afternoon) on the attached paper (news/views attached as well) forecasting a north atlantic-driven cool spell for next decade or so based on a new approach to ocean modeling. this has significance in policy arena, of course, if people don't appreciate that inevitable wiggles from climate variability can muddy trends. If they don't, then efforts to paint human-pushed warming as an 'urgent' imperative can be undercut. (this all presumes you think this is solid model and forecast...) thanks for input on the basic question of whether this is solid, and/or on the implications if so. here are a couple questions i've sent to the authors: 1) I need help figuring out if the 'tip' to North Atlantic cooling (,to the mean) has already begun, according to the model? Is there any sense that it might have contributed to the post 1998 slowdown in warming (which varies depending on data set, but seems 'real'). 2) Kevin Trenberth (NCAR) and others have urged int'l climate community to move more toward forecasting, given that no policy choices are going to measurably limit climate change for decades. This seems like an early-stage tool that could fill that bill. Am I right in that? What would you like to add to this model to see it play a real-world role? 3) Your cool forecast has significance not only for planners, but for folks locked in policy debates (kyoto successor, US climate legislation etc). If the public, and policymakers, don't understand that climate variability can muddy the short-term picture, are they apt to lose faith in those calling human-forced warming an 'urgent' problem and the like? -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 www.nytimes.com/revkin Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WarmSeaShortPredictNatPaper08.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\WarmSeaShortPredictNatPaper081.pdf" 1028. 2008-04-29 09:08:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer date: Tue Apr 29 09:08:36 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature to: Tom Wigley Tom, Here's what I sent Kevin yesterday. Still don't have the proofs with Figures in. It is most odd how this Cambridge seminar has been so widely publicised. Michael McIntyre seems to be sending it everywhere. Dave Thompson is on a sabbatical in the UK for 6 months (at Reading). Should be here soon for a visit to CRU. The press release is very much work in progress. Appended the latest version at the end. This version still need some work. Maybe I'll get a chance later today. cc'd Ben as if and when (hopefully) the 'where Douglass et al went wrong' paper comes out a press release then would be useful. In both cases, there is a need to say things in plain English and not the usual way we write. For some reason the skeptics (CA) are revisiting the Douglass et al paper. A very quick look shows that a number think the paper is wrong! There is also a head of steam being built up (thanks to a would be Australian astronaut who knows nothing about climate) about the drop in temperature due to La Nina. If you've time look at the HadCRUT3 plot for March08. It was the warmest ever for NH land. The snow cover plots at Rutgers are interesting also. Jan08 for Eurasia had the most coverage ever, but March08 had the least (for their respective months). It seems we just need the La Nina to finally wind down and the oceans to warm up a little. The press release could be an issue, as it looks as though we are underestimating SST with the buoys - by about 0.1 deg C. Cheers Phil Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary fluctuations in global temperature due to El Niño and transient weather patterns, researchers at Colorado State University, the University of Washington, the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia have highlighted a number of sudden drops in global temperature. Most of these drops coincide with the eruptions of large tropical volcanoes and are also evident in air temperatures measured over the worlds land areas, but the largest, occurring towards the end of 1945, is unrelated to any known volcanic eruption and is not apparent over land. It appears to arise from an artificial and temporary cooling caused by an abrupt change in the mix of US and UK ships reporting temperatures at the end of the Second World War. The majority of sea temperature measurements available in international data bases between 1941 and 1945 are from US ships. Far fewer data are available in this period than in the 1930s and the 1950s. The crews of US ships measured the temperature of the water before it was used to cool the ships engine. Because of warmth coming from the ship, the water was often a little warmer than the true sea temperature. At the end of 1945 the number of US observations in the data base dropped rapidly. At the same time the number of UK observations increased. UK ships measured the temperature of water samples collected using special buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled onto the deck often caused these measurements to be cooler than the actual sea temperature. The sudden change from US (engine room) to UK (bucket) measurements from warmer to cooler is what caused the abruptness of the drop. Although the drop in 1945 was large in climate-change terms about 0.3°C its full effect is likely to be limited to the period immediately after the Second World War, because by the 1960s better-insulated buckets were coming into use and a there was a more varied mix of measurements from different national merchant shipping fleets. Because it occurs in the middle of the century it will have little effect on 20^th Century warming trends, which are corroborated by independent records of air temperatures taken over both land and sea. Climate researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre are working to reduce the biases in the temperature datasets. In the past two years, many hundreds of thousands of observations have been keyed in from hand-written log books that were kept aboard ships in the UK navy, particularly for the periods of sparse marine coverage, such as the two World War periods. Although fixing the drop is unlikely to radically alter our understanding of climate change, having a more accurate record of the real temperature change during the mid-20^th century could provide insight into the more subtle mechanisms that caused the early rise in temperatures to the 1920s and the subsequent flattening of the temperature curve that lasted into the early 1970s. Marine temperatures are much more prone to systematic biases arising from changes in the way the measurements are taken and the platforms used,,than are land aur temperatures. For example, since the 1970s, sea surface temperatures have been estimated from satellites, but these need considerable adjustment (sometimes in excess of 2 deg C) to be comparable with ship and buoy measurements. The satellite sees only the top millimetre of the ocean surface, while traditional ship-based sampling sees the top few metres. A change is gradually talking place across the worlds oceans in the way sea surface temperature measurements are made during the last ten years: the number of ship-based measurements has reduced slightly, but there is a dramatic increase in the number of measurements coming from automatic measurements taken on fixed and drifting buoys. Work is underway to determine the size of the difference between the ships and buoys, as the bias between the two could be of the same order as that in the 1940s. Kevin, Odd how far and wide Cambridge seminars are advertised! Dave Thompson has given this talk at Reading and will be here tomorrow for a similar talk. Here's an email I sent earlier to someone in London. I'm on the Nature paper - due out end of May/early June. Attached the draft press release as well. Any thoughts welcome. I hope you'll see how all this could be misinterpreted! Cheers Phil Chris, David Thompson is giving a talk here tomorrow on this. The essence of his talk will be in Nature in a few weeks time. The skeptics will make a meal of this when it comes out, but if they did their job properly (I know this is impossible!) they would have found it. It relates to a problem with SST data in the late 1940s. The problem will get corrected for at some point. SSTs need adjusting as there must be from buckets for the period from Aug45 by about 0.3 gradually reducing to a zero adjustment by about the mid-1960s. The assumption was that after WW2 they were all intake measurements and didn't need adjusting. This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won't be quite as necessary. It won't change century-scale trends. There is much more of an interesting thing going on now. With all the drifters now deployed measuring SST, the % of ships making measurements in now only about 40% of the total - whereas it was all in the late 1990s. In comparisons over the last 10 years it seems that ships measure SSTs about 0.1-0.2 higher than the drifters/buoys. As the 61-90 base period is ship based, it means recent anomalies are colder than they should be (by about 0.1 for global mean T in the last 2 years). Working on a press release with MOHC about the Nature paper. We've been though page proofs with Nature, but these don't yet include figs. I can send these when we get them. Cheers Phil At 15:02 28/04/2008, you wrote: Phil Any idea what this is about? Kevin -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Talk on Understanding 20th C surface temperature variability Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:00:36 +0100 (BST) From: Leverhulme Climate Symposium [1] Reply-To: [2]climate@esc.cam.ac.uk To: [3]climate@esc.cam.ac.uk Dear Colleagues, David Thompson of Colorado State University will be speaking in Cambridge on 22 May on 'Understanding 20th century surface temperature variability'. His talk will 'highlight a glaring but previously overlooked error in the time series of global-mean temperatures', see full abstract below. (For those too far from Cambridge to attend, this is for information and interest). The prevailing view of 20th century temperature variability is that the Earth warmed from ~1910 to 1940, cooled slightly from ~1940 to 1970, and warmed markedly from ~1970 onward. In this talk I will exploit a physically-based filtering methodology which provides an alternative interpretation of 20th century global-mean temperature variability. The results clarify the consistency between the century- long monotonic rise in greenhouse gases and global-mean temperatures, provide new insights into the climatic impact of volcanic eruptions, and highlight a glaring but previously overlooked error in the time series of global-mean temperatures. Thursday 22 May, 2.15 pm in Meeting Room 2, Centre for Mathematical Sciences (between Clarkson and Madingley Roads) -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [4]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [5]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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4312. 2008-04-29 12:09:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, tom.delworth@noaa.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, cwunsch@ocean.mit.edu, rcurry@whoi.edu, jseveringhaus@ucsd.edu, shs@stanford.edu date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:09:19 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: nature paper / ocean model as short-term regional climate to: Andrew Revkin Dear Andy, thanks for asking. I think this an interesting paper and this kind of decadal forecasting will become increasingly important. On the other hand, it is still early days, this is pioneering work and many aspects of this are not yet properly understood, as Richard Wood rightly cautions in his N&V. Not least, nobody knows what the MOC really has done over the past decades. So what does this mean for the forecasts? The prediction of European cooling: I'd take that in a Bayesian sense as some evidence for possibly cooler temperatures, but not enough to make cooling more likely than warming for me. So if I had to bet money at equal odds on warming or cooling, I'd still bet on warming, although with less confidence than previously. I'm not sure their error bars give the full error - note for example that their forecast error bar for 2015 in Fig. 4 is almost zero, so even without having had time to properly look at what this error bar encompasses, I suspect that it is not the full uncertainty. And of course they predicted the 1994-2004 period to be quite a bit cooler than before, and it turned out to be warmer (Fig. 3c). Prediction of global temperature: The authors claim that this "may not increase over the next decade". However, their standard A1B run has a higher correlation with global temperature than their hindcast run, and their hindcast run predicted cooling over the past 5 years (the period 1994-2004 was hindcast as being colder than the decade centered five years earlier) when in fact warming happened, and it predicted flat global temperatures in the past 10 years (in this sense) when warming occurred. This is very interesting when you compare it to the time evolution of the MOC. Almost the entire verification period, where their method shows some skill, the MOC has been increasing. Since about 1990 it has stopped to increase and started to decrease (in their analysis, nobody knows for real), and consequently their method predicts cooling over Europe and globally since then - but up until now, for the past two points in their series, this prediction turned out to be wrong. That's why I'm not sure whether I believe it for their next two points. If the method works only while the MOC is increasing, but not while it is decreasing - maybe the past forecast skill has nothing to do with the MOC? Certainly it has not been well-validated for times of decreasing MOC. They predicted a slight cooling for Europe for 1965 and 1970, but the observed trends here are closer to the scenario run without the MOC forecast. The early phase of weak diagnosed MOC, before 1970, may also not be weak MOC at all (according to some work by Mike Mann), it may be at least partly an effect of aerosol cooling over the North Atlantic region, which has the effect of cooling regional SST and thereby looking like weak MOC - it would be hard to disentangle the two effects. So I think this is good work, I do not want to denigrate this in any way, but as I said it is very early days with this type of forecasting and many questions are still not properly understood, so I would not start to draw strong conclusions at this point. Of course the basic message is always correct: some natural variability is always superimposed on the greenhouse warming trend, so ten years of less warming or more warming don't tell us anything about this greenhouse trend - see the discussion we had on realclimate on this point: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/ You could test how serious the authors are: tell them that a prominent climatologist is offering them a bet of $10,000 at equal odds that global mean temperature will be warming over the next decade. Are they prepared to bet against this? Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 1630. 2008-04-30 09:57:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: trenbert@ucar.edu, tom.delworth@noaa.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, cwunsch@ocean.mit.edu, rcurry@whoi.edu, jseveringhaus@ucsd.edu, shs@stanford.edu date: Wed Apr 30 09:57:37 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: nature paper / ocean model as short-term regional climate to: Stefan Rahmstorf , Andrew Revkin Andy, You raise an interesting issue. We've all heard the comment, why should I believe in climate change when the weather forecasts can be shown to be wrong some of the time. The forecasts in this paper take this type of question a stage further. As Stefan says they are very much 'work in progress' and they are attempting to get to more policy relevant timescales of the next 20 years. Their success or not, though, will likely influence how govts and the public might respond to the need for more Kyoto type reductions in the next few years. Maybe they will not have much of an effect as memories appear to be getting shorter. As more centres move into this area, we will get more of a feel of how good they might be. They are still only of average conditions, and peoples views of a 'winter' or a 'summer' are normally swayed by a few weeks within the season. You mention the post-98 warming slowdown as seeming to be real. Watch out for a paper you'll get from Nature in the w/o May 29. I'll be in my office that week. An aside, but I've noticed over the past year or so, when I occasionally discuss what I do with fellow travellers on planes. I say I'm a climatologist - reply is often, that's interesting do you believe in climate change? Maybe this is people just making conversation, but it comes across to me the same as do you believe in God or evolution, as though climate change is a bit like a religion. My general riposte is to tell people to look around them and see the changes (in Europe) - in the earlier spring season, the lack of snow/frosts etc. Cheers Phil At 11:09 29/04/2008, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: Dear Andy, thanks for asking. I think this an interesting paper and this kind of decadal forecasting will become increasingly important. On the other hand, it is still early days, this is pioneering work and many aspects of this are not yet properly understood, as Richard Wood rightly cautions in his N&V. Not least, nobody knows what the MOC really has done over the past decades. So what does this mean for the forecasts? The prediction of European cooling: I'd take that in a Bayesian sense as some evidence for possibly cooler temperatures, but not enough to make cooling more likely than warming for me. So if I had to bet money at equal odds on warming or cooling, I'd still bet on warming, although with less confidence than previously. I'm not sure their error bars give the full error - note for example that their forecast error bar for 2015 in Fig. 4 is almost zero, so even without having had time to properly look at what this error bar encompasses, I suspect that it is not the full uncertainty. And of course they predicted the 1994-2004 period to be quite a bit cooler than before, and it turned out to be warmer (Fig. 3c). Prediction of global temperature: The authors claim that this "may not increase over the next decade". However, their standard A1B run has a higher correlation with global temperature than their hindcast run, and their hindcast run predicted cooling over the past 5 years (the period 1994-2004 was hindcast as being colder than the decade centered five years earlier) when in fact warming happened, and it predicted flat global temperatures in the past 10 years (in this sense) when warming occurred. This is very interesting when you compare it to the time evolution of the MOC. Almost the entire verification period, where their method shows some skill, the MOC has been increasing. Since about 1990 it has stopped to increase and started to decrease (in their analysis, nobody knows for real), and consequently their method predicts cooling over Europe and globally since then - but up until now, for the past two points in their series, this prediction turned out to be wrong. That's why I'm not sure whether I believe it for their next two points. If the method works only while the MOC is increasing, but not while it is decreasing - maybe the past forecast skill has nothing to do with the MOC? Certainly it has not been well-validated for times of decreasing MOC. They predicted a slight cooling for Europe for 1965 and 1970, but the observed trends here are closer to the scenario run without the MOC forecast. The early phase of weak diagnosed MOC, before 1970, may also not be weak MOC at all (according to some work by Mike Mann), it may be at least partly an effect of aerosol cooling over the North Atlantic region, which has the effect of cooling regional SST and thereby looking like weak MOC - it would be hard to disentangle the two effects. So I think this is good work, I do not want to denigrate this in any way, but as I said it is very early days with this type of forecasting and many questions are still not properly understood, so I would not start to draw strong conclusions at this point. Of course the basic message is always correct: some natural variability is always superimposed on the greenhouse warming trend, so ten years of less warming or more warming don't tell us anything about this greenhouse trend - see the discussion we had on realclimate on this point: [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-o f-model-data-comparison/ You could test how serious the authors are: tell them that a prominent climatologist is offering them a bet of $10,000 at equal odds that global mean temperature will be warming over the next decade. Are they prepared to bet against this? Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4053. 2008-04-30 13:00:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: Andrew Revkin , trenbert@ucar.edu, tom.delworth@noaa.gov, broccoli@envsci.rutgers.edu, cwunsch@ocean.mit.edu, rcurry@whoi.edu, jseveringhaus@ucsd.edu, shs@stanford.edu date: Wed Apr 30 13:00:04 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: nature paper / ocean model as short-term regional climate to: Stefan Rahmstorf Stefan, Andy, In our land-only data the NH was the warmest ever in March, so for land-only NH the figure for 2008 so far is barely down on previous years. The map for March 08 is on our web site, the HC and also on the GISS site. It is just a month. It is useful to look at Jan and March 08 in the context of Eurasian snow cover. [1]http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ For Eurasia Jan08 was a record high coverage, whereas March 08 was a record low coverage. During Feb an awful lot of snow area disappeared. It is just a couple of months, though. The oceans around the world are still relatively cool. At least March should stop the stupid op-ed pieces about the coming Ice Age and the 2007/2008 cooling which is just a La Nina response. Some La Nina's (and some El Nino's) seem to have a bigger effect on large-scale temps than others. One day I might get some time to figure out why! Cheers Phil At 10:53 30/04/2008, Stefan Rahmstorf wrote: Hi Phil and Andy, re the "slowdown in warming" question - perhaps it is remarkable that we had the warmest March on record over land, and one of the warmest overall (I think ranked second or third depending on the data set), despite La Niña conditions and a minimum of the 11-year solar cycle - two of the main things thought to cause wiggles around the overall warming trend. What do you think, Phil? The common question "do you believe in climate change" is an expression of the fact that most lay people still think that this issue is hotly debated amongst climatologists, thanks to the skeptics nonsense articles that keep appearing in the media. So first in the conversation they want to find out what "camp" you are in. A very sensible social strategy, since it helps them to not offend you. Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [2]www.ozean-klima.de [3]www.realclimate.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1803. 2008-04-30 14:51:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Apr 30 14:51:13 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Hansen's latest to: "Rachel Warren" Rachel truth is that I HAVE NOT read this - and will try to get to it - but loaded down for a few days with marking. At very quick glance I am dubious Keith At 14:31 30/04/2008, you wrote: Keith Have you read the attached (Hansen's latest? - downloaded from his website)? I'd be interested to know if you agree with his palaeoclimatic analysis or not. This analysis uses palaeoclimatic data and fairly simple calculations to show that long term climate sensitivity is 6C (as opposed to short term which he agrees is around 3C). It seems well reasoned to me but then I am not an expert on palaeoclimate ... Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@uea.ac.uk Content-Type: application/pdf; name="TargetCO2, Where should humanity aim_20080331.pdf" X-Attachment-Id: f_ffny3tft0 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="TargetCO2, Where should humanity aim_20080331.pdf" -- 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/ 3781. 2008-04-30 15:41:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: dave lister date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:41:51 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Rain Days - Russia to: Ian Harris ,Phil Jones At 14:27 30/04/2008, Ian Harris wrote: >2388400 6160 9000 63 BOR RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >2007 -999 -999 >2926300 5845 9215 78 JENISEJSK RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >2007 -999 -999 >2928200 5842 9740 134 BOGUCANY RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >2007 -999 -999 > >Their datasets are attached. Not attached? > Looks like the data added 1990 and after >is significantly lower than the previous data (on which the normals >would be based). > >This is the geneaology of the current rd0 database: > >wet.0311061611.dtb > + >rdy.0709111032.dtb (MCDW composite) > + >rdy.0710151817.dtb (CLIMAT composite with metadata added) > V > V >wet.0710161148.dtb > >However, as I've now understood that this problem existed in 2.1, >it's back to square one. we have two courses of action, I think. >Incidentally, Tim - I've checked and I must have imagined a big MCDW >archive - both CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins were only acquired from Jan >2003. presumably on the basis that Tim M. had already incorporated them for the period prior to 2003? Mitchell & Jones (2005), Table 1, indicates that he did indeed do that for 1990-2002 for MCDW and for 1994-2002 for CLIMAT. Their Figure 1, though rather blurred, suggests that it is MCWD not CLIMAT that dominates for wetdays. >1. We could delete all rd0 data after 1990 and rely on synthetics. >This may introduce noticeable incongruities in certain areas, >especially as we're changing methodology just after the normals period. > >2. We could just derive rd0 from the precip data. After all, it's a >pretty good relationship. > >How about I do both, and we compare? It won't take too long.. I would suggest doing (1) first; then do (2) if incongruities are evident in (1). However, the drop in Russia occurs in 1990. By eye, I thought it was 1991, but by inspecting the data, it is clear that they have dropped by summer 1990 and perhaps part-way through spring 1990. Therefore can you drop all rd0 from the start of 1990 onwards, rather than after 1990 (which could mean 1991 onwards). Phil, what do you think? 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 1061. 2008-04-30 17:31:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: dave lister date: Wed Apr 30 17:31:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Rain Days - Russia to: Ian Harris , Tim Osborn Harry, Tim, What this looks like is a different threshold for the rainday data for the period before 1984 from that after 1989. As all these stations start in 1936, the data come from daily precip data, so someone (could have been Mark) has calculated the rainday counts directly. I suspect this was for 0.1mm. From CLIMAT/MCDW the threshold is likely 1.0mm so this is why the day counts have reduced. As this has likely happened at all the 250+ stations across the fUSSR that are in the daily dataset we used to have, I'd suggest doing (1), but need to extend it a little. Don't do just Russia, but all fUSSR. You can get this by doing all WMO IDs beginning in 2 or 3. The fUSSR has all countries have all WMO Ids from 20-39. The issue will occur in other fUSSR countries, but is less important further south, as there it rains less, but when it does it generally more than 1.0mm, so the value of the threshold doesn't matter that much. Cheers Phil At 15:52 30/04/2008, Ian Harris wrote: On 30 Apr 2008, at 15:41, Tim Osborn wrote: At 14:27 30/04/2008, Ian Harris wrote: 2388400 6160 9000 63 BOR RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 2007 -999 -999 2926300 5845 9215 78 JENISEJSK RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 2007 -999 -999 2928200 5842 9740 134 BOGUCANY RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 2007 -999 -999 Their datasets are attached. Not attached? Durrrrrrr. Attached. Looks like the data added 1990 and after is significantly lower than the previous data (on which the normals would be based). This is the geneaology of the current rd0 database: wet.0311061611.dtb + rdy.0709111032.dtb (MCDW composite) + rdy.0710151817.dtb (CLIMAT composite with metadata added) V V wet.0710161148.dtb However, as I've now understood that this problem existed in 2.1, it's back to square one. we have two courses of action, I think. Incidentally, Tim - I've checked and I must have imagined a big MCDW archive - both CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins were only acquired from Jan 2003. presumably on the basis that Tim M. had already incorporated them for the period prior to 2003? Mitchell & Jones (2005), Table 1, indicates that he did indeed do that for 1990-2002 for MCDW and for 1994-2002 for CLIMAT. Their Figure 1, though rather blurred, suggests that it is MCWD not CLIMAT that dominates for wetdays. well the series look to diverge from 1990 rather than 1994, so that figures. 1. We could delete all rd0 data after 1990 and rely on synthetics. This may introduce noticeable incongruities in certain areas, especially as we're changing methodology just after the normals period. 2. We could just derive rd0 from the precip data. After all, it's a pretty good relationship. How about I do both, and we compare? It won't take too long.. I would suggest doing (1) first; then do (2) if incongruities are evident in (1). However, the drop in Russia occurs in 1990. By eye, I thought it was 1991, but by inspecting the data, it is clear that they have dropped by summer 1990 and perhaps part-way through spring 1990. Therefore can you drop all rd0 from the start of 1990 onwards, rather than after 1990 (which could mean 1991 onwards). I started like that, then realised we'd lose stations that needed that extra year to qualify! However, see the attachment - the new data kicks in in May 1990 so you are right. I'll back track again and re-do with a Dec 1989 cutoff. Cheers Harry Phil, what do you think? 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3861. 2008-05-01 00:05:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ian Harris" , "Tim Osborn" , "dave lister" date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:05:59 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: Rain Days - Russia to: "Phil Jones" In fact I'd meant delete all wetday data from Jan 1990 onwards, not just Russia. So what you suggest (all of fUSSR) is a contraction rather than an extension. I don't mind which Harry does. There is little other real wetday data after 1990 once fUSSR data is removed; some of that may have a similar problem to what you describe as the likely problem with fUSSR (e.g., if Mark had daily precip for other locations too). So it could be removed too. But if it is left in then it probably won't make things too bad, not like the fUSSR problem. I'll leave it to you Harry to decide which is simplest to do. Cheers Tim On Wed, April 30, 2008 5:31 pm, Phil Jones wrote: > > Harry, Tim, > What this looks like is a different threshold for the rainday > data for the period > before 1984 from that after 1989. As all these stations start in > 1936, the data come > from daily precip data, so someone (could have been Mark) has calculated > the > rainday counts directly. I suspect this was for 0.1mm. > From CLIMAT/MCDW the threshold is likely 1.0mm so this is why > the day counts > have reduced. As this has likely happened at all the 250+ stations > across the fUSSR > that are in the daily dataset we used to have, I'd suggest doing > (1), but need to extend it > a little. > Don't do just Russia, but all fUSSR. You can get this by doing > all WMO IDs beginning in 2 > or 3. The fUSSR has all countries have all WMO Ids from 20-39. > > The issue will occur in other fUSSR countries, but is less > important further south, as > there it rains less, but when it does it generally more than 1.0mm, so > the value of the threshold doesn't matter that much. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 15:52 30/04/2008, Ian Harris wrote: > >>On 30 Apr 2008, at 15:41, Tim Osborn wrote: >>>At 14:27 30/04/2008, Ian Harris wrote: >>>>2388400 6160 9000 63 BOR RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >>>>2007 -999 -999 >>>>2926300 5845 9215 78 JENISEJSK RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >>>>2007 -999 -999 >>>>2928200 5842 9740 134 BOGUCANY RUSSIA (ASIA) 1936 >>>>2007 -999 -999 >>>> >>>>Their datasets are attached. >>> >>>Not attached? >> >>Durrrrrrr. Attached. >> >>> >>>> Looks like the data added 1990 and after >>>>is significantly lower than the previous data (on which the normals >>>>would be based). >>>> >>>>This is the geneaology of the current rd0 database: >>>> >>>>wet.0311061611.dtb >>>> + >>>>rdy.0709111032.dtb (MCDW composite) >>>> + >>>>rdy.0710151817.dtb (CLIMAT composite with metadata added) >>>> V >>>> V >>>>wet.0710161148.dtb >>>> >>>>However, as I've now understood that this problem existed in 2.1, >>>>it's back to square one. we have two courses of action, I think. >>>>Incidentally, Tim - I've checked and I must have imagined a big MCDW >>>>archive - both CLIMAT and MCDW bulletins were only acquired from Jan >>>>2003. >>> >>>presumably on the basis that Tim M. had already incorporated them >>>for the period prior to 2003? Mitchell & Jones (2005), Table 1, >>>indicates that he did indeed do that for 1990-2002 for MCDW and for >>>1994-2002 for CLIMAT. Their Figure 1, though rather blurred, >>>suggests that it is MCWD not CLIMAT that dominates for wetdays. >> >>well the series look to diverge from 1990 rather than 1994, so that >>figures. >> >>>>1. We could delete all rd0 data after 1990 and rely on synthetics. >>>>This may introduce noticeable incongruities in certain areas, >>>>especially as we're changing methodology just after the normals >>>>period. >>>> >>>>2. We could just derive rd0 from the precip data. After all, it's a >>>>pretty good relationship. >>>> >>>>How about I do both, and we compare? It won't take too long.. >>> >>>I would suggest doing (1) first; then do (2) if incongruities are >>>evident in (1). >>> >>>However, the drop in Russia occurs in 1990. By eye, I thought it >>>was 1991, but by inspecting the data, it is clear that they have >>>dropped by summer 1990 and perhaps part-way through spring 1990. >>>Therefore can you drop all rd0 from the start of 1990 onwards, >>>rather than after 1990 (which could mean 1991 onwards). >> >>I started like that, then realised we'd lose stations that needed >>that extra year to qualify! >> >>However, see the attachment - the new data kicks in in May 1990 so >>you are right. I'll back track again and re-do with a Dec 1989 cutoff. >> >>Cheers >> >>Harry >> >>>Phil, what do you think? >>> >>>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 >> >> >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 2081. 2008-05-01 11:34:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nathan Gillett , Gabi Hegerl , Peter Stott , Toru Nozawa , Alexey Karpechko , Michael Wehner date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:34:43 +0100 (BST) from: Dáithí Stone subject: Re: Fwd: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-04-03762 to: Phil Jones I agree there probably isn't any point in trying Science now. Nature Geoscience could be worth a try, I haven't figure out how they work yet. Or GRL. Or perhaps Environmental Research Letters? They've looked pretty good so far and by the breadth of perhaps seem to have a reasonably broad readership. DA On Thu, 1 May 2008, Phil Jones wrote: > > Nathan, > I would expect Science to make the same decision as Nature, > unfortunately. > It seems that they both want papers which have a little more controversy. > I though this might, when it comes to the Antarctic, but this seems only an > issue to an educated few. > Have a look at GRL. I think I recall a few papers in this with > supplementary > material. The GRL formula that works out the size is a little odd. I have > been > involved in a couple recently that have been 7pp. Looking at these, > (attached), > I attribute this to having near full page diagrams! > > I'd vote for GRL, as it will likely involve less work than going to J. > Climate. > If it is then too big for GRL, JGR would do. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 00:13 01/05/2008, Nathan Gillett wrote: >> Hi all, >> Unfortunately Nature didn't go for our polar detection paper, so we've >> got to decide where to send it now. We could try Science, though this >> may yield a similar answer, GRL, as originally planned (this would >> mean not including the figures in the supplementary material), or >> perhaps J. Clim. Other suggestions/votes welcome. I'm out of the >> office for the next couple of weeks, but I'll get back to this after >> that... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nathan >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: >> Date: 2008/4/29 >> Subject: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-04-03762 >> To: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk >> >> >> 29th April 2008 >> >> Dear Dr Gillett >> >> Thank you for submitting your manuscript, "Attribution of polar >> warming to human influence", for consideration. As you may know, in >> deciding which papers to publish we have to make an editorial >> judgement about the immediacy of interest for a general audience, the >> degree of advance provided, and the like. In practice, this means that >> we decline a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending >> them to referees, in cases where we feel that, even if referees were >> to certify the manuscript as technically correct, there would not be a >> strong case for publication in Nature, rather than a specialist >> journal. >> >> In the present case, we have no doubt that your analysis will be of >> value to others seeking to quantify the anthropogenic influence in >> records of polar temperature change, not only for the claim of a >> detectable anthropogenic signal in Antarctica but also for the >> methodology that you have adopted to achieve this. But I regret that >> we are unable to conclude that the paper provides the sort of >> conceptual advance in scientific understanding of the underlying >> physical processes (and the magnitude thereof) that would warrant >> publication in Nature rather than in a more specialised journal. >> Having said this, we do appreciate the topicality of your findings and >> if you would let us know when the paper has finally been accepted for >> publication elsewhere, we could then explore the possibility of >> highlighting these results elsewhere in the magazine. >> >> I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively, and I hope that >> you will understand that our decision in no way reflects any doubts >> about the quality of the work reported. The unfortunate fact is that >> we receive many more papers than we can undertake to publish, and we >> must attempt to select those that will be of the greatest interest to >> a wide audience. I hope that you will rapidly receive a more >> favourable response elsewhere. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Karl Ziemelis >> Physical Sciences Editor, Nature >> Nature's author and policy information sites are at >> www.nature.com/nature/submit/. >> >> >> ** As a service to authors, Nature Publishing Group provides authors >> with the ability to transfer a manuscript that one journal cannot >> offer to publish to another journal, without the author having to >> upload the manuscript data again. To transfer your manuscript to >> another NPG journal using this service, please click on >> >> >> >> >> ** For Nature Publishing Group general information for authors, see >> www.nature.com/nature/authors. >> >> Please note that decisions@nature.com does not accept incoming or >> return messages. >> >> >> This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System >> NY-610A-NPG&MTS >> >> >> >> -- >> **************************************************************************** >> Dr. Nathan Gillett, >> Climatic Research Unit, >> School of Environmental Sciences. >> University of East Anglia. >> Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk >> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ >> >> Currently on sabbatical at: >> School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, >> University of Victoria, >> Gordon Head Complex, >> PO Box 3055, >> STN CSC, >> Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, >> Canada. >> Tel: +1 250 472 4013 >> Fax: +1 250 472 4004 >> >> **************************************************************************** > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. MAIL: DĂ¡ithĂ­ 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/ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 4138. 2008-05-02 11:47:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 2 11:47:01 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: WET dataset(s) to: Ian Harris harry - the wetsyn netCDF file seems full of crap! stripey like when you previously combined 0.5 normals with 2.5 anomalies, though somehow much worse! No variability in Jan or Apr, stripey in Jul and Oct. Tim At 10:16 02/05/2008, you wrote: Hi I've made a complete run of half-degree synthetic-only WET to be used with the observed + 2.5-degree synthetic WET as follows: Option 1: No obs after 1989 Use 1901-1989 decadal files from /cru/cruts/version_3_0/secondaries/ wet/wet_final/ Use 1990-2006 decadal files from /cru/cruts/version_3_0/secondaries/ wet/wet_final_synthetic/ (if you'd like single files for each period let me know) Option 2: synthetic only Use all files from /cru/cruts/version_3_0/secondaries/wet/ wet_final_synthetic/ Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 3785. 2008-05-05 09:56:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "tim Osborn" date: Mon, 5 May 2008 09:56:22 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: more FOI requests, re IPCC and Keith/John Mitchell to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea, ac.uk@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith and Phil, see Climate Audit , David Holland has requested all John Mitchell emails sent/received relating to his role as review editor (including to/from Keith and me). Met Office say there are apparently very few, but have provided copies of some, including one from you, Keith (which I think was just you forwarding Holland's recent letter to you, Keith). An email from Susan Solomon to John Mitchell giving advice about how to respond has been copied on to Climate Audit and discussed. I'd never have expected that our emails would be publicly released in this way! I wonder whether UEA will soon receive a similar request for our email correspondence (more likely for Keith's)? Will we have someone from the computer centre coming along and searching through our email boxes in response to such a request? Or do they have copies of them all stored centrally, even ones we've deleted? I guess we better be careful with wording all emails related to David Holland, even informal ones! Cheers Tim 54. 2008-05-06 09:19:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 6 09:19:06 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: JOC-08-0098 - International Journal of Climatology to: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz Hi Glenn -- I hope the slow reviewer is not one that I suggested! Sorry if it is. I'm not sure what Ben Santer expects you to do about it at this stage; I guess you didn't expect such a lengthy article... I've not seen it, but Phil Jones told me it ran to around 90 pages! Hope all's well in NZ. Tim At 03:32 06/05/2008, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Glenn, This is a little disappointing. We decided to submit our paper to IJoC in order to correct serious scientific errors in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper. We believe that there is some urgency here. Extraordinary claims are being made regarding the scientific value of the Douglass et al. paper, in part by co-authors of that paper. One co-author (S. Fred Singer) has used the findings of Douglass et al. to buttress his argument that "Nature not CO2, rules the climate". The longer such erroneous claims are made without any form of scientific rebuttal, the more harm is caused. In our communications with Dr. Osborn, we were informed that the review process would be handled as expeditiously as possible. Had I known that it would take nearly two months until we received a complete set of review comments, I would not have submitted our paper to IJoC. With best regards, Ben Santer g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz wrote: 05-May-2008 JOC-08-0098 - Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere Dear Dr Santer I am hoping to have the remaining set of comments with 2 weeks of so. As soon as I have these in hand I will pass them onto to you. Best, Prof. Glenn McGregor -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 795. 2008-05-06 17:50:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 6 May 2008 17:50:34 +0100 from: "Langenberg, Heike" subject: RE: Quick query regarding your report on NGS-2008-02-00218 to: Thanks Keith, that's easy enough. Best wishes, Heike ******************************************** Dr Heike Langenberg Chief Editor Nature Geoscience http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html -----Original Message----- From: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk [mailto:K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 May 2008 17:45 To: Langenberg, Heike Subject: Re: Quick query regarding your report on NGS-2008-02-00218 Heike Sorry . Did not mean to cause this confusion . Please move the comments (by Dr.Tom Melvin ) of my colleague to the "to the editors" section as you suggest. My own comments (that I prefer to remain as anonymous) are sufficient to fullfil the review process. Hope this ok now. Best wishes Keith > Dear Keith, > > Thanks again for sending your report on this paper. We have now obtained > all the reports and are proceeding to make a decision. I am just writing > to let you know that we will not be able to use the comments made by > your colleague without him being identified. > > Given that they seem broadly in line with your concerns, it seems > easiest to just move those comments into "To the editors" and base our > decision on your own assessment. If you feel strongly that your > colleague's comments should included in addition to yours, please > identify him for us (of course, we will keep the identity confidential). > If so, please let us know immediately, since *given the delays that have > already occurred) we would like to make a decision as soon as possible. > > Best wishes, > Heike > > PS For your convenience, I attach your remarks to the authors as we > received them below. > > ******************************************** > > Comments on Nature submission by Yuliya Savval and Frank Berninger .( > NGS-2008-02-00218 ) > > Sulphur Deposition causes a large scale growth decline in boreal forests > in Eurasia. > > This paper is not suitable for publication in any journal in its present > form. Even by Nature standards it can only be described as opaque. There > is nothing like enough material or detail presented even in the > supplementary material to allow a full balanced assessment of the > general argument that Sulphur pollution is negatively impacting on pine > growth in the western part of the Eurasian boreal forest. > > My first observation is that it is odd that this paper makes no > reference at all to the widely cited paper by Briffa and colleagues > pointing out the decline in boreal forest growth since the 1950's > relative to the temperature trends that would be expected to produce > increased growth. This issue and the implications for Paleoclimate > studies are widely debated and given much provenance in the recent IPCC > reports. > > Putting this to one side Savval and Berninger choose to adopt some > dendroclimate techniques, the implications of which for their analysis > they then fail to discuss, and choose not to use other dendroclimatic > techniques or results of previous work, specifically the construction of > site chronologies and the descriptions of the climate responses of trees > in their regions. > > The findings of this paper depend critically on the methods used to > account for the expected reduction in radical ring width as a function > of stem expansion as the tree grows and in the validity of the > statistical model used to identify and remove the influence of climate > variability on ring width variation. > > The authors' use three forms to of the measurements they have extracted > from the publicly available tree ring data bank. In the first they use > the measurements directly. The early radial growth measurements over the > period 1920-1940 cannot be directly compared to measurements from the > same trees in later periods because of the well known thinning in the > measurements as tree age, so the ratio approach (see figure 2A) is > invalid. > > The use of negative exponential functions (figure 2B) to remove the > effect is prone to end fitting problems and effective response (in a > time-series filtering context) is unpredictable. Also it seems very > unlikely that the residuals from these functions could produce data > virtually identical to the original data as is implied in Figure 2. > Similarly the use of 'blind' regression to remove the climate effect is > undesirable (see earlier comments) and is not likely to have no effect > on the data trends as is implied in figure 2C. Then we come on to the > analysis of the association between tree decline and N and S pollution. > There is no clear statement of why the sites used were chosen. There is > strong Finnish/Western Siberia bias with 5 or 6 spatial outliers. > > It is worrying that associations (illustrated in figure 3) between tree > growth and pollutant loading are strongly influenced by 6 points showing > high numbers of trees with growth differences (between earlier and later > times) for low pollution loading. Without these points, then is no > relationship. We are not informed where these points are? We also do not > know what the interpretation of growth differences at each site means - > is it a consequence of poor detrending? Is it statistically significant? > To me figure 3 merely shows that high S generally means high N. In > figure 3B, just as many sites show positive as show negative residuals > for high N and S. > Similarly, in figure 4 the data shows barely significant results and for > the 'cold March' cases the result is highly leveraged by a single very > high S deposition site. No information is provided about this site. > > Overall I find the study opaque and the conclusions not demonstrably > supported by the analysis. > I recommend rejection. > > I also showed the paper (confidentially) to a colleague. His comments > are included below: > > > This paper presents an analysis of tree-ring data downloaded from ITRDB > and shows that there has been a recent decline in tree-growth rates > which the paper claims are related to sulphur deposition. > > Three measures are used to "remove ontogenic and environmental trends" > from ring-width measures in this paper all have serious flaws (see > below) invalidating the conclusion of reducing tree-growth rates in the > 20th century. The downward sloping index series generated from > ring-width measurements here will, of course, correlate with all sloping > series (of anything that can be measured), and the comparisons in this > document with sulphur and nitrogen deposition are meaningless. > > This paper is ill conceived and should be rejected. > > Detailed comments: > > The first measure, the mean ring width relative to the mean growth of > the 1920-1940 period, simply recovers the slope of decreasing ring width > with age commonly found in trees and is equivalent to using mean raw > ring width values. > > The second measure, negative exponential curves are fitted to series of > measurements and subtracted and the residuals are averaged at a site > level. This method produces series with an arbitrary slope of zero (the > segment length curse, Cook 1995) and as a result, index series are not > suitable for comparison with slowly changing (over the life of a tree) > variables such as CO2 increase, nitrogen deposition or sulphur > deposition. [Those measurement series to which a negative exponential > cannot be fitted can produce sloping index series but this paper fails > to mention the fitting of any alternative curves] > > The third measure, the residuals after multiple regression of mean > ring-width for each site against locally best-fitting months of climate > data for the site, will contain the age-related growth trend of > ring-width measurements. > > ******************************************** > Dr Heike Langenberg > Chief Editor > > Nature Geoscience > http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 11 April 2008 10:34 > To: Langenberg, Heike > Subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript > NGS-2008-02-00218 > > Heike > I do not know whether you sent official instructions for returning > this review - I can not find a "later" message from you. Attached is > my review (and some brief comments by a colleague) . Best wishes > Keith > > At 18:46 14/03/2008, you wrote: >>Dear Keith, >> >>Thanks very much for agreeing to review this paper for us (after Easter >>will be fine), and for the suggestions for complementary referees. With >>my next email, I will send a link to our webbased data base. >> >>Specifically, do you think the authors' interpretation of their >>tree-ring data is robust, including the corrections for age and climate >>variations? If so, do think the main finding regarding > continental-scale >>impacts of sulphur deposition on forest growth is new and important? Of >>course, similar effects have been found for the regional scale, but the >>authors argue that such a widespread has not been reported before. >> >>I look forward to hearing what you think. >> >>Best wishes, >>Heike >> >> >>******************************************** >>Dr Heike Langenberg >>Chief Editor >> >>Nature Geoscience >>http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: 14 March 2008 15:26 >>To: Langenberg, Heike >>Subject: Re: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript >>NGS-2008-02-00218 >> >>Hi Heike >>yes I am happy to take a look at this one . As for other referees I >>would suggest John Grace at Edinburgh (University) , or perhaps >>Malcolm Hughes in Tucson (tree Ring Lab.) . >>hope a response after Easter will suffice >>cheers >>Keith >> >> >>At 14:10 14/03/2008, you wrote: >> >MIME-Version: 1.0 >> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >>boundary="_----------=_120550382054503" >> >X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) >> >Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:10:20 -0400 >> >Message-Id: <49120550382020@rhwww4.nature.com.nature.com> >> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> > >> >Dear Professor Briffa >> > >> >As you may have heard, we have recently launched Nature Geoscience, >> >a monthly research journal (please see our website >> >http://www.nature.com/ngeo for more >>information). >> > >> >A short manuscript has been submitted to Nature Geoscience, which we >> >were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript >> >comes from Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger and is entitled "Sulphur >> >deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal forests in >> >Eurasia". Its first paragraph is pasted below. >> > >> >Would you be able to specifically assess the interpretation of the >> >tree ring data, as well as the novelty and importance of this >> >manuscript for us, within about two weeks of receiving the paper? >> > >> >If you are unable to help us with this, can you suggest any >> >alternative referees who would have an appropriate expertise? I >> >would also be grateful for any thoughts that you might have >> >regarding other referees who would be appropriate to complement your >> >expertise on this work. >> > >> >Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing >> >from you soon. >> > >> >Best wishes, >> >Heike Langenberg >> > >> >******************************************** >> >Dr Heike Langenberg >> >Chief Editor >> > >> >Nature Geoscience >> >>http://www.nature.com/ngeo/inde x >>.html >> > >> > >> >Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal >> >forests in Eurasia >> > >> >Yuliya Savva and Frank Berninger >> > >> >Even small changes in the productivity of boreal forest should have >> >a large effect on the carbon balance, but are challenging to detect >> >due to their long life span. Human activity has changed climate, >> >atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and the concentrations of >> >several pollutants over the last decades. Yet the combined effects >> >of these changes have not been quantified. Here we demonstrate that >> >the radial growth of one of the main forest species, Scots pine in >> >Northern Eurasia, has declined by 18% or 0.003 mm per year from the >> >1950s to the 1980s. This decrease was closely related to sulphur >> >depositions at the sites, while nitrogen depositions appeared to >> >increase growth. Additionally, sulphur deposition caused Scots pine >> >forests to be more sensitive to drought and cold springs. Although >> >the negative effects on the growth of plants from the relatively >> >polluted areas have been widely observed, the long-term effects of >> >sulphur emissions and its spread to ecosystems distant >> >from the point sources of pollution has never been previously >> >reported at such a large scale. The study is of fundamental >> >importance given that pollutant emissions into the atmosphere are >> >still rising in many regions. >> > >> >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 > geoscience@nature.com. >> > >> > >> >This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System >> >NY-610A-NPG&MTS >> >>-- >>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/ >> >> >>********************************************************************** * > ********* >> >>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 >>********************************************************************** * > ********* > > -- > 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/ > > ************************************************************************ ******** > 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 > ************************************************************************ ******** > > ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** 3338. 2008-05-07 12:08:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:08:37 +0100 from: "Cater Sandra Mrs \(FIN\)" subject: RE: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Meardon Fiona Miss \(RBS\)" , "Meldrum Alicia Dr \(RBS\)" Dear Phil, I have reconciled the account to date and propose to send the following figures - all in US$ Received to date 1,589,632.00 2007/08 Staff buyout - Jones 71,708.00 Cons - actual to date 9,650.00 Travel - actual to date 6,940.00 Indirect costs on above 66,200.00 Total to 30/04/08 1,744,130.00 April to June 08 Staff - Jones 19,290.00 Cons 10,550.00 - includes some of the previous year under spend Travel 3,840.00 - as above Indirect costs 25,200.00 Total 58,880.00 July to Sep 08 Staff - Jones 19,290.00 Cons 3,200.00 - includes some previous under spend Travel 4,500.00 - as above Indirect costs 20,200.00 Total 47,190.00 These figures keep within the allocated budget. Please let me know if you agree this I will e-mail Catherine. Regards Sandra Sandra M Cater Office Supervisor Finance Research Registry Building University of East Anglia Norwich NR 4 7TJ Tel : 0044-1603-593216 Fax : 0044-1603-593860 e-mail: s.cater@uea.ac.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:44 AM To: Meardon Fiona Miss (RBS); Meldrum Alicia Dr (RBS); Cater Sandra Mrs (FIN) Subject: Fwd: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant Alicia, Fiona, Sandra, Hope this doesn't take too long to work out and send to Catherine. If you need any help let me know. Cheers Phil X-Server-Uuid: F0E03B37-707C-4DCF-A928-7EECE47830F0 Subject: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:44:38 -0500 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Request for Cost date for DOE Grant Thread-Index: Aciq8j7EoosKEL4QQ9OUgErATV9ppA== From: "Richardson, Catherine" To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2008 18:44:39.0681 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F0EEF10:01C8AAF2] X-WSS-ID: 640661D233S4167282-01-01 X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 2299780 - 2e3481b4882c (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=2299780&m=2e3481b4882c&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=2299780&m=2e3481b4882c&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=2299780&m=2e3481b4882c&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Fiona Meardon East Anglia University Dear Grantee: SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COST INFORMATION In accordance with the President's Management Agenda, there has been and continues to be a Government-wide movement to ensure that the American people receive better results for their money. Thus, all government entities are striving to improve the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of financial information regarding the results of operations and overall performance. As we seek to accomplish this goal, we are requesting cost data from our Grant recipients that have received significant financial assistance monies from the Department of Energy Office of Science - Chicago Office. The requested information, summarized below, will assist in our continuing efforts to ensure that we produce accurate and timely financial information. We need your assistance in the following areas: A. Providing Cumulative Cost Data: For most of the awards administered by the Office of Science - Chicago Office, there is a financial reporting requirement to submit cost data on the Financial Status Report (SF-269) at the end of the project period. Currently, there is no requirement for you to submit cost data on a more frequent basis. However, in order to achieve our goal of improving the quality, accuracy, and timeliness of our financial information, the Department's external independent auditors have insisted that we confirm cumulative cost balances with Grantees that have received significant financial assistance monies at least annually. For each grant award listed, we request that you provide the following: DOE Grant Award(s) No. 1. Cumulative actual Cost through March 31, 2008 (from inception of the award): 2. Your best estimate for costs to be incurred for April through June 30, 2008: 3. Your best estimate for costs to be incurred for July through September 30, 2008: We are not requiring a specific or formal format for the requested information. Instead, please e-mail your cost data as requested above for each identified grant award to Catherine Richardson at [4]catherine.richardson@ch.doe.gov. Please direct your comments and/or questions to Ms. Richardson at 630/252-6276. B. Requesting Advances and Reimbursements: Consistent with our efforts to improve the Department's financial information, we are reviewing significant unpaid balances on our financial assistance awards as well as any credit balances on the Quarterly Federal Cash Transactions Reports (SF-272) which would indicate a delay between the performance of the work and the requests for reimbursements submitted to us from your organization. The Department's external auditors and other users of financial information are concluding that these unpaid balances may not be used and possibly should be withdrawn. Therefore, we request that you: · Review your existing procedures for requesting advances and reimbursements from DOE; and · Ensure that the delay between the performance of work and subsequent reimbursements is as minimal as administratively possible. If this situation does not apply to your organization, no action is required on your part. We appreciate your support in this important initiative. If you have any questions, please call Cornell Williams at 630/252-2394 or e-mail him at [5]cornell.williams@ch.doe.gov. Catherine Richardson Staff Accountant US Department of Energy Office of Science - Chicago Office (630)252-6276 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 236. 2008-05-07 13:20:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed May 7 13:20:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Meeting to discuss Freedom of Information Act Request to: "Goffin Sandie Mrs \(SCI\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Michael, Dave, I'm attaching two background documents for tomorrow morning's meeting. These are the updated version's of the two documents referred to in Holland's footnote. His footnote web pages are no longer active, and I've checked with the IPCC that these are the current ones, which I downloaded today. The more relevant document is the longer one, and the most relevant section is Annex 1. Cheers Phil At 10:04 07/05/2008, Goffin Sandie Mrs \(SCI\) wrote: Many thanks for contacting me about this. I can now confirm that the meeting will be held tomorrow (8th) at 09.00 in the Science Meeting Room (0.22D). Best wishes Sandie ============================================ Sandie Goffin PA to the Dean and Secretary to Senior Faculty Manager and Associate Deans Faculty of Science Office UEA Norwich, NR4 7TJ Tel: 01603 593026 Norwich - City for Science _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 8:53 AM To: Goffin Sandie Mrs (SCI) Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Subject: Meeting to discuss Freedom of Information Act Request Sandie, Could you please fix up a meeting early next week if possible to discuss a FOIA request which has recently arrived. The meeting should involve Dave Palmer from the Library, Keith Briffa and Phil Jones from ENV, and myself. We will need one hour max. Thanks 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 [1]m.mcgarvie@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2389. 2008-05-07 13:27:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 7 May 2008 13:27:18 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: wetdays... yippee! to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, On 7 May 2008, at 13:03, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Harry and Phil, > > Not a cry for some rain... instead relief that we now appear to > have a usable wetday file. :-) > > The patterns of means, standard deviations and correlations with > CRU TS 2.1 data all look reasonable (obviously with a slightly > lower correlation over some, e.g. Russian, regions because 2.1 has > the step-change in wetdays due to the data inhomogeneity). > > The country-mean, seasonal time series are attached. The step in > 2.1 (the red lines) is clearly avoided in the new 3.0 (the black > lines). > > The version I've used is the usual CRU TS approach from 1901-1989 > -- i.e., the results of gridding the station wetday data together > with the 2.5-degree grid of synthetic wet day -- and then switching > to completely synthetic wet days calculated directly on the 0.5- > degree grid from the 0.5-degree pre, for 1990-2005 (I've ignored > 2006, but the same should be done for that and beyond, until the > post-1989 station wetday data is sorted out at some future time). > > Assuming you're both happy with the attached country-mean time > series, then can we settle on this as *the* CRU TS 3.0 wetday data > set? I expect that's pragmatic; but I'm not sure Canada looks right, and the dry African states/countries have a different unrealistic pattern to 2.1.. > In which case, I can give it to our QUEST partners, and Harry can > you make up a new 1901-2006 pair of files containing this final > combination? Currently I'm reading the separate files and > combining them as described above, but a single file would be > easier for me (and others) to deal with. Yup. > Well done for your work on all these multiple iterations/approaches > Harry. > > Assuming you're happy with wetdays, then that means all CRU TS 3.0 > is done except CLD and FRS (the latter is made but I've not checked > it, so its not impossible that there's some factor-of-10 error). Agreed entirely. > Harry -- FYI Allan Spessa has asked overall QUEST (i.e. not our > particular QUEST project) if they'll pay a month's salary to us to > help us get CLD working. As you noted before, it is not just down > to money, but rather to time, given the demands of our QUEST > project for future scenarios now. If QUEST do find the money, > therefore, then I'll ask Douglas to do the work on recreating the > coefficients that Mark New/Tim Mitchell couldn't find for making > synthetic CLD. That seems an easily separable task from the actual > gridding stage. Once synthetic CLD is made, you would then of > course be involved in the gridding stage -- though if you were > documenting the CRU TS process, it might prove to be a useful trial > run for Douglas to attempt to follow your instructions and see if > they can get him through the process? One thing I'm not sure about > is the status of the station data base for CLD... assuming we're > not basing the updates (post-2002) entirely on synthetic data, then > presumably station CLD (estimated mostly -- or entirely? -- from > station sunshine) updates are needed. Are these done already? If > not, do you have code ready to do this sunshine-->cloud > conversion? Am I barking up the wrong tree? It's very complicated, there's a whole raft of related programs I'm afraid, and dozens of data files. I can't remember what stage I got to but I do have notes. And Douglas is an excellent choice ;-) > Sorry for the long email... nearly there! > > Thanks for all your hard work on this Harry. I'd like to be able > to let you take a bit of a break and catch up with non-project > things. Unfortunately, after 6 weeks hard work from both of us, > we've now reached the stage that I already thought we'd reached at > Easter, when I was panicking about how far behind we were! :-( I did guess. I was going to ask for a week to sort out a non-IDL gridding package ;-) > So... when you've made the final wet files, please can you get back > to the climate change pattern diagnosis from the GCM runs. You'll > probably need to get up to speed with where you'd got to. I have > patterns for 'tas' (i.e., near-surface mean temperature) and > 'pre' (including relative and exponential ones) from you. For > those GCMs with min and max temp data, could you follow the same > procedure as for 'tas', to make patterns for tmin, tmax and also > repeat it using tmax-tmin to get patterns for dtr. Understood. Will spin up the disks and re-read the project diary! > Then I'll give you some guidance for diagnosing precip variability, > cloud and vapour pressure patterns as they differ a bit from the > other variables. OK. I will still have to fiddle with the automation of the TS process though; I'll do that in non-work time. As you'll have seen, BADC are getting edgy, and high-level interrupt routines may be kicking in shortly! Cheers H Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 4006. 2008-05-07 17:05:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 7 17:05:48 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Nature review request - manuscript 2008-04-04235 to: k.ziemelis@nature.com Karl, OK - send full ms, or details of where I can find the paper. Cheers Phil At 16:47 07/05/2008, you wrote: Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2055 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Professor Jones A manuscript has been submitted to Nature, which we were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript comes from Alexander Stine, Peter Huybers, and Inez Fung and is entitled "Changes in the Phase of the Annual Cycle of Surface Temperature". Its first paragraph is pasted below. Is this a paper that you would be able to review for us within 14 days? 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 [1]www.nature.com/nature/authors/referees/index.html. Many thanks in advance for your help; I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely Karl Ziemelis Physical Sciences Editor, Nature Nature's author and policy information sites are at [2]www.nature.com/nature/submit/. Changes in the Phase of the Annual Cycle of Surface Temperature Alexander Stine, Peter Huybers, and Inez Fung The annual cycle in surface temperature is massive, larger than even the glacial-interglacial cycles in most places on Earth. Trends in amplitude and phase of the annual harmonic in surface temperature have been observed, but models predict the opposite sign phase trend to that which is observed. Our understanding of natural variability is poor making it difficult to assess the importance of observed trends. Here we show that the phase of extratropical land shifted towards earlier seasons by 1.5 days from 1954-2006 and that this shift appears anomalous with respect to natural variability. This shift is not seen over the ocean. No significant change in the amplitude is found. 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 nature@nature.com. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4168. 2008-05-08 11:36:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Thu, 8 May 2008 11:36:22 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: Freedom of Information Act request to: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" Jacquie, I held a meeting this morning with Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil Jones, to discuss a FOIA request which had come from one of the contributors to the climateaudit.org website. Dave Palmer, the University's FOIA expert, was also present. It was agreed that I would alert you to this for your information. (You may recall that I alerted you to a number of similar requests from another contributor to the website last year, involving Phil.) We have agreed a plan of action to deal with this request within the regulations. The request is unreasonable as it currently stands (it asks for all letters and emails between Keith and 19 individuals worldwide and 5 organisations over IPCC business). I will keep you posted on this as necessary. 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 [1]m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk 846. 2008-05-08 11:46:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 08 May 2008 11:46:43 +0100 from: Thomas Crowley subject: request for data from someone other than Steve McIntyre to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil Hello from the UK - hope all is well with you, I am busily working on calibrating ice core volcano data set and running it back to 1 AD....MPI is planning on some v long model runs.... but I would also like to compare future new model results with an update of our millennial++ reconstruction I have also concluded that it would be best for the sake of future comparisons to use, as much as possible, the same v long tree ring time series as you use so that it is easier to separate differences due to methodology as opposed to just slight differences in choices of records. I would therefore v much appreciate if you could send me just your real long time series - torntrask, yaml, ural region, sierras, etc -- just those going back only beyond AD 1300 unless I am mistaken this is still only a very small subset of data that is out there, so I am hoping that if this is possible my future reconstructions will be a lot easier for intercomparisons. thanks v much for any help on this -- if its too much of a hassle I got dig somewhere else and I certainly won't be disappointed/offended/etc if you ask me to do that. all the best, tom -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 2832. 2008-05-08 12:17:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith Briffa , Phil Jones date: Thu May 8 12:17:41 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: request for all correspondence related to IPCC to: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , "Ricardo Villalba" , Susan Solomon , Jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, derzhang@msn.com Dear colleagues, our university has received a request under the UK's Freedom of Information Act for all correspondence (emails, letters, faxes) relating to our work as IPCC authors, including those that we sent to you, but also those that you may have sent to us! We've attached a copy of this request; you are all named explicitly in the request (though the request is not limited to correspondence with just those listed). We have not yet decided how to respond to this request, because of the huge number of emails that we would have to search through and consider, and the amount of work involved. We have been advised by the UEA information officer to request some information from you, specifically: (i) whether you have any concerns if we were to release any emails etc. that you may have sent to us (it is entirely possible that any correspondence that we release may be posted on certain websites); (ii) whether you or your institutions have received similar requests; (iii) and, if you have received similar requests, what your response has been / will be. If we do release any such material, we would expect to inform you, so that you are fully aware of what we have released. We would really appreciate it if you would do the same, if you also release similar material. Note that this email, together with any responses you might make by email/letter/fax, might also need to be released. To save time or effort on your part, you can always phone us if you prefer (Keith: +44 1603 593909, Tim: +44 1603 592089). Best wishes Keith and Tim 4832. 2008-05-08 12:56:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 8 12:56:46 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: UEA Environmental Sciences Website to: BuleyAL@aol.com Dear Tony, Lawson is just trying to sell his book! There may be something of relevance in it wrt the economics of trying to do anything on climate change, but as far as the science behind climate change he is just wrong. It is hard for the general public to follow these issues. The blog sites don't help that much. Real Climate is the best - it is run by real climatologists. They don't have as much there as some of the others, but the people running it have to do day jobs. Legates and Baliunas don't know anything about proxy data. I think you should have said Soon and Baliunas. They don't have any background in paleoclimatology, so you can forget them. The latest info is in the IPCC Report, but I know it is almost 1000pp. You only get sound science in the proper climate science journals. These are the ones peer-reviewed by climate scientists. Journals have what is called an Impact Factor based partly on citation counts. If they don't mention this they aren't worth reading. The IPCC report has a section on the MWP. Even though this was likely more regional than many believe (e.g. there is growing evidence it was cooler in the Equatorial Pacific during this time, with more La Nina events) we have been warmer than then since the 1980s. Glaciers are retreating across the world (except in a few regions such as southern Norway where they respond to winter precip). In the Alps man-made items are being found under the retreat. Most come from 6000 years ago, with some from Roman times. None is Medieval. Attached is a paper on the last few millennia. Cheers Phil At 11:32 08/05/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Thank you for your reply to my "Lord Lawson" query. That is very clear and seems to confirm my concern about Lawson's attempt to spin the interpretation of your data. I notice that, in his book, he has also grabbed on to the Legates and Baliunis attack on the "Hockey Stick " model which I know you have a direct interest in. They seem to have good scientific pedigrees so presumably their arguments should be taken seriously. How is that model holding up to this scepticism? Is the issue about the "medieval Warm period" resolved? For the majority of the general non-scientific public (which includes many of my friends) these are pretty esoteric debates and they views can be easily swayed either way by a plausible book or documentary. I feel it is important that people like myself, scientifically trained but not as climate scientists, should have a good up-to-date understanding of the issues so as to be able to explain and support sound scientific argument on such an important matter. I have read Sir John Houghton's book and found it very helpful. Regards Tony Buley PS My apologies for twice misspelling "Hadley" in my email. A phenomenon known among us over 60s as the "Senior Moment effect". In a message dated 06/05/2008 10:46:38 GMT Standard Time, p.jones@uea.ac.uk writes: Dear Tony, Have also just read the full page spread in Saturday's Guardian, and a couple of response letters in today's issue. Lawson doesn't understand climate change (the science). He may be right that we won't be able to do much about slowing the rate of change. He thinks like a politician and not a scientist. What he doesn't understand is that increasing greenhouse gases are only one factor affecting climate change. They dominate on timescales beyond decadal, but on the interannual, natural variability dominates. We are relatively cool now because of the La Nina event, which is waning. The next warmest year will be the year of or the year after the next El Nino event. This has all been explained countless times before. [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080103.html In finding this link, I notice that the Met Office have put up another release on April 29. [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080429.html There is no after the event in all this. Climatologists have known for years that much of the variability of global T (and NH and SH) is due to El Nino and La Nina. The attached is from our in-house magazine (Climate Monitor) from 1990. It is all a matter of timescales. The 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s (so far) are clearly warmer than the 1990s. There are a lot of silly op-ed pieces on climate change and recent temperatures. Most are just not worth responding to. The latest has been about the drop in temperatures between Jan07 and Jan08. This is as a result of La Nina. You might like to look at the recent temperatures on our site for March08. [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2008/ March08 has been the warmest March on record for the NH land. This is just because the snow cover over Eurasia disappeared quickly during Feb. See these time series and maps. [4]http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ Look at Eurasia snow cover extent for Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar08. March is only one month. Cheers Phil At 12:17 05/05/2008, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones, I was away on holiday when Karen Crockett sent me this mail, hence the delay. In a sense the moment has passed now but I became marginally involved in a dispute between Lord Lawson (he of the new book about "so-called global warming" -his phrase, not mine) and Dr E Robert Watson in the letter columns of the Financial Times where Lawson had repeated his claim, made in his book, that average global temperatures have not risen this century - a statement subsequently strongly disputed by Watson. I wrote a slightly whimsical letter to the Editor of the FT , which was published, saying that I was inclined to believe "the trained chemist rather than the former financial journalist" and it was then that Lawson replied quoting joint research by CRU and the Hadler Institute as supporting his statement. Having examined the websites of Hadler and CRU it appears that while apparently literally correct (as temperatures seem to have temporarily stabilised around a point slightly lower than that reached in 1998), Lawson has ignored the fact that seven of the ten warmest years ever recorded have occurred since 2000 and that, by attempting to pooh pooh a highly plausible explanation for this (La Nina) by describing it as "after the event", he has put own spin on the figures to support his own extreme scepticism. In the process he is attempting to "distort the underlying scientific truth of these data" (my phrase). As a one-time scientist myself (now retired) I am particularly incensed by non-scientists who try to place simplistic interpretations on complex data. As I say, the argument moved on while I was on holiday where I did not have access to the FT but, if you have time to reply, I would be interested to know your views on Lawson's interpretation of your own research data. If he has a point he should be given due credit. I think it is important because Lawson is still an influential figure. With kind regards Tony Buley Dr A L Buley Oxford OX2 6XP In a message dated 23/04/2008 11:45:08 GMT Standard Time, k.crockett@uea.ac.uk writes: Dear Tony, Following your call on Monday regarding information on our website, I have had some email correspondence from Professor Phil Jones. He is currently away and so unable to talk by phone, but if you can email your query to him via [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk he shall try and help you from there. Regards, Karen. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Karen Crockett Local Support Secretary and CSERGE Secretary School of Environmental Sciences (2.36) University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Tel: +44 (0)1603 593176 Fax: +44 (0)1603 591327 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1912. 2008-05-08 13:42:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 8 13:42:39 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Model Choices to: Steve Jones Hi Steve; not sure if I'll be in the office on Friday -- I might be, so if you're on campus anyway, then feel free to come and check, but don't make a special trip. I'll be here Mon and Tue, if that's any good? Tim At 13:54 07/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, I've managed to extract all the data I need from Ron Miller's stuff, and performed a few stats analyses on the results. There's some interesting outcomes, which should enable us to choose a few models to use for the main part of the project. I've attached an Excel spreadsheet containing the stats from the models, together with two graphs. The first shows the 2000-2100 detrended variance for individual models with a given number of 21st Century runs, which may or may not allow us to select some models based on variance. The second graph shows the Least Squares Regression divided by the 1900-1970 standard deviation (Miller's data was scaled to have a zero mean for this period). For each model, both the 1950-2100 (red) and 2000-2100 (blue) trends are shown. I thought it would be interesting to see how the trend varies for different time periods (accelerating/decelerating/constant), and hence be able to choose some models based on those characteristics. My next step will be to look into the more detailed characteristics of the NAM in order to determine what kind of things are likely to give a reasonable comparison between models and observations - I'll be reading up on this in the next couple of days. Are you around either tomorrow or Friday to have a chat about which models would be best to use, and what kind of things I might look for in the next analysis stage? If so, let me know (any time except late morning on Thursday is good). Thanks, Steve. 1294. 2008-05-08 17:48:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , Ricardo Villalba , Susan Solomon , Jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, derzhang@msn.com, Keith Briffa , Phil Jones date: Thu, 8 May 2008 17:48:18 -0400 from: David Rind subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC to: Jean-Claude Duplessy To my knowledge we have not received any similar requests. As to what my position would be, I doubt that it could be a personal one - as a U.S. government employee, there are likely rules that would have to be followed, over which I probably don't have discretionary behavior. David >Tim Osborn a écrit : >>Dear colleagues, >> >>our university has received a request under the >>UK's Freedom of Information Act for all >>correspondence (emails, letters, faxes) >>relating to our work as IPCC authors, including >>those that we sent to you, but also those that >>you may have sent to us! >> >>We've attached a copy of this request; you are >>all named explicitly in the request (though the >>request is not limited to correspondence with >>just those listed). >> >>We have not yet decided how to respond to this >>request, because of the huge number of emails >>that we would have to search through and >>consider, and the amount of work involved. >> >>We have been advised by the UEA information >>officer to request some information from you, >>specifically: >> >>(i) whether you have any concerns if we were to >>release any emails etc. that you may have sent >>to us (it is entirely possible that any >>correspondence that we release may be posted on >>certain websites); >> >>(ii) whether you or your institutions have received similar requests; >> >>(iii) and, if you have received similar >>requests, what your response has been / will be. >> >>If we do release any such material, we would >>expect to inform you, so that you are fully >>aware of what we have released. We would >>really appreciate it if you would do the same, >>if you also release similar material. >> >>Note that this email, together with any >>responses you might make by email/letter/fax, >>might also need to be released. To save time >>or effort on your part, you can always phone us >>if you prefer (Keith: +44 1603 593909, Tim: +44 >>1603 592089). >> >>Best wishes >> >>Keith and 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 >> >Dear Colleagues, > > >I have the same feeling as Stefan. > >According to the French law, e-mails are private >communications and they do not constitute formal >documents like a signed letter. > >I do not understand how such a request can be legaly made. > >Best regards > >jean-Claude > >-- >Jean-Claude DUPLESSY >laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement >Bâtiment 12 >Parc du CNRS >F - 91198 Gif sur Yvette cedex > >- tel (33) 01 69 82 35 26 >- fax (33) 01 69 82 35 68 > >- e-mail : Jean-Claude.Duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr -- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 3108. 2008-05-09 09:10:05 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:10:05 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" A response from Mr. Holland. Essential point is that if we were to find that this request is 'vexatious', it doesn't matter which Act we use; should, upon investigation, the appropriate limit be exceeded, then FOIA provides that as an option that the EIR does not. I am happy to 'row back' to FOIA (with the attendant bashing I am sure to take!) should that be correct in the circumstances. I believe the rest of the communication should come as no surprise. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 9:41 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01) Dear Mr Palmer, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST (Your ref: FOI_08-23; EIR_08-01) Thank you for your prompt reply to my request, which incidentally has brought an acknowledgement from Dr Briffa for which I am grateful. I note that you say you must consider the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), rather than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I have no problem with that if it results in the release of the information I wish to see. However, the email correspondence, of Drs Briffa and Jones that I mentioned to you, was released to me under the Freedom of Information Act - in my view quite properly, and is not Environmental Information per se but entirely pertinent to my investigation of the IPCC AR4 process and I would, of course, be disappointed if similar document at CRU were not released. The legal status of the internationally agreed Principles Governing IPCC Work may not be as clear and obvious as the FOI and EIR Acts, but in my view their clear and unambiguous requirement for openness and transparency should, with the public interest in this area and the importance attached to it by HMG, encourage you to presume disclosure of all IPCC related information. Clearly, if case for policies that are causing such public concern is solidly based, no disclosures will diminish it, while any attempt to avoid full disclosure will provide ammunition for those that question the work of the IPCC. Thanking you in advance, David Holland ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: [2]d.holland@theiet.org Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 6:08 PM Subject: Freedom of Information Act 1998 / Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request (FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01) Mr. Holland, Attached please find a letter acknowledging your request received on 5 May 2008. It also contains further information regarding the handling of this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. 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 ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1419 - Release Date: 07/05/2008 07:46 1641. 2008-05-09 10:00:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "raymond s. bradley" , Caspar Ammann date: Fri, 09 May 2008 10:00:45 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: A couple of things to: Phil Jones Phil--thanks for the updates. Most of this I've seen from you (including that junk from this Holland joker). Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I fear that contrarians will attempt to use this, as you allude to, to undermine our confidence in the observational record. Something to keep in mind when giving interviews about the paper--important to steer journalists in the right direction on this story. we'll almost certainly want to do something about this on 'realclimate'. as for the bet, well this was mostly Stefan's idea, and it isn't because we think it anyway that the authors are playing into a contrarian agenda. we just don't think the forecast is credible, and every time a prominent prediction turns out to be wrong, it costs us as a community some credibility. as for the Pategonian eruption, I'm skeptical it will do all that much, extratropical and winter season--shouldn't have much opportunity for a major dust veil, I guess we'll see! talk later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, Ray, Caspar, > A couple of things - don't pass on either. > > 1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way > to go, > but it will drum up some discussion. > > Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the > SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these > will appear > in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this > article > by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now > (or since > about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This > likely won't > get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase > confidence. > > Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C > too cool > globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which > measure SST > better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low > relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base. > > This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their > runs > was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all > modellers, reanalyses etc. > > There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people > saying we can't > even measure it properly now. > > The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there > will be > warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling > to a little > later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late > 50s and 1960s70s. > The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will > include the addition > of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the > WW2 years. > More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. > Budget > constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been > digitized. Emphasis > has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books. > > As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. > They have digitized > all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of > Australia and NZ > to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that > most of the ships are > US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. > All the RN bases > in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these > ships for a few years. > > So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely > ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing! > > > 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but > this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails > Keith and Tim > have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way > around this. > > I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix > showing what > that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on. > > The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern > Report. > > This message will self destruct in 10 seconds! > > 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 2569. 2008-05-09 12:57:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , "Ricardo Villalba" , Susan Solomon , Jouzel@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, derzhang@msn.com date: Fri, 9 May 2008 12:57:43 -0700 from: Jonathan Overpeck subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC to: Tim Osborn Dear Tim, Keith and Colleagues: I'm sorry to hear that you are been asked to go beyond the IPCC process that we agreed to when we began our involvement with the IPCC AR4. This process was set up in an intergovernmental context, and was designed to be open and transparent. There was no agreement to share email beyond the original senders and recipients. Thus, please do not share any of my email correspondence with you without my prior approval. With regard to your questions, please see my responses below in BOLD. >(i) whether you have any concerns if we were to release any emails >etc. that you may have sent to us (it is entirely possible that any >correspondence that we release may be posted on certain websites); I DO NOT APPROVE OF ANY RELEASE OF ANY EMAIL IN WHICH I WAS EITHER THE SENDER OR RECIPIENT. > >(ii) whether you or your institutions have received similar requests; I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY SIMILAR REQUEST. > >(iii) and, if you have received similar requests, what your response >has been / will be. I DO NOT CONSIDER IT APPROPRIATE TO SHARE MATERIALS, INCLUDING EMAILS, THAT WE AGREED WOULD NOT BE SHARED AS PART OF THE IPCC INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROCESS. Best of luck, Peck -- 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/dgesl/ http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/ 3548. 2008-05-09 17:01:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Eystein Jansen , Fortunat Joos , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, Ricardo Villalba , Jean Jouzel , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , Keith Briffa , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, derzhang@msn.com, Thomas Stocker date: Fri May 9 17:01:29 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: request for all correspondence related to IPCC to: Susan Solomon , Eystein Jansen , Tim Osborn Susan et al, Thanks for this. Responses so far have been unanimous. Keith/Tim will pass these onto the FOI person at UEA. It might surprise you all to know that we have a full time person here at UEA for this! The FOI was designed to make government more accountable, but it affects many more institutions and organizations than intended. Although we have nothing to hide, responding in the way suggested will allow these people to continue their campaign against IPCC, attempting to persuade people that we have something to hide. There isn't another way - I can see that. Perhaps - whoever is involved in AR5 - should consider modifying the working procedures, in the light of these requests, as I think they will increase in number at a quicker rate than the global T will. Maybe if the arctic sea ice disappears completely in a summer soon these people will finally stop disputing the evidence. By then though it will be too late to do much about it. Have a good weekend! Phil At 15:44 09/05/2008, Susan Solomon wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am attaching below the message I sent to John Mitchell and the other REs, with regard to a query seeking information on data as well as discussions about comments, in case it is helpful to those of you who may not have yet seen it. The same considerations apply to the chapters as to the comment files. The final chapters and comment files have all been made publicly available, and the web pages are the appropriate place for those seeking to understand what was done and the reasons why. Distribution of interim materials, or other forms of elaboration are not appropriate. best regards, Susan -------------------- John I feel that the most appropriate response will be from you, since you have been queried. I will offer the following points that may be useful to you or others in replying to the queries that you or other REs may have received but of course it is up to you how you wish to respond. The IPCC process assesses the published scientific and technical literature or, in some cases 'gray literature', based on the judgment of the authors. In general gray literature is used very seldom in WG1 although such material as industry technical reports are used more frequently in WG3. Unpublished draft papers or technical reports referenced in the chapters are made available to reviewers for the purposes of the review, not the underlying datasets used. IPCC does not have the mandate nor resources to operate as a clearing house for the massive amounts of data used in the underlying papers referenced. The governance of conduct of research, and the governance and requirements of the scientific literature are not IPCC's role. The review editors do not determine the content of the chapters. The authors are responsible for the content of their chapters and responding to comments, not REs. Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the comments or the author responses, would not be appropriate. All of the comments, and all of the authors' responses, have been made available. These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the reference to the web pages where this can be found. 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 281. 2008-05-09 17:04:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 9 17:04:16 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A couple of things to: "raymond s. bradley" Hi Ray, Press release has been being written! I can't seem to find a meeting to go to when the paper comes out! Moorea was good - hope you'll be able to get to Athens! Cheers Phil At 16:56 09/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil: I think you should issue your own carefully-worded press release, stating explicity what your results DO NOT mean, as well as what they do...otherwise you will spend the next few weeks trying to undo a lot of unwanted press coverage. Hope all is well with you....we need to get together at some place...sorry I missed Tahiti! ray At 04:53 AM 5/9/2008, you wrote: Mike, Ray, Caspar, A couple of things - don't pass on either. 1. Have seen you're RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go, but it will drum up some discussion. Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won't get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence. Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low relative to the ship-based 1961-90 base. This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc. There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can't even measure it properly now. The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little later - more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s. The paper doesn't provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years. More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books. As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here - it turns out that most of the ships are US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases in South Africa, India and Australia didn't have parts for these ships for a few years. So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing! 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this. I can't wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on. The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report. This message will self destruct in 10 seconds! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3079. 2008-05-10 10:08:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 10 May 2008 10:08:57 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Blog Swap with Solve Climate]] to: Phil Jones Hey Phil, Please see the below--any update on the Wengen paper? It appears that McIntyre is trying to scoop us, must have somehow learned that we've tracked this down. It would be nice for the paper to be officially 'accepted' before he figures the story out, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fwd: Blog Swap with Solve Climate] Date: 09 May 2008 19:01:30 -0400 From: Gavin Schmidt [1] To: Michael E. Mann [2] CC: Stefan Rahmstorf [3] References: [4]<43049.169.154.204.2.1210371731.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com> [5]<4824D71A.4020708@meteo.psu.edu> I saw... but I think we'll weather the storm. the followup post needs to be soon though. On another subject, McIntyre has worked out where IPCC 1990 fig 7.2 has came from (almost). We are being scooped! (More to the point, what is the status of the Wengen paper and can we do the origin post at some point? Not too soon obviously!) Gavin On Fri, 2008-05-09 at 18:58, Michael Mann wrote: > unfortunately, for every one of those, there's one of these: > > Jim Cross Says: > 8 May 2008 at 6:50 PM edit > > I must have missed a link to the full article along the way. I only > see links to the abstract. > > This is very sad that RC has been reduced to a carnival like betting > on global warming. > > or these: > 1. Gareth John Evans Says: > 8 May 2008 at 5:12 PM edit > > Shame on RealClimate for turning a serious scientific subject > into a bet. If these authors are wrong please use the > scientific method - evidence, reasoning, and yes climate > models (if predictions vary) to convince others. > > Gareth Evans > > > neither can be dismissed as a denialist troll. > > we really did seem to offend a lot of normally supportive people w/ > this one, right or wrong... > > mike > > [6]contrib@realclimate.org wrote: > > see, some people liked it.... > > > > gavin > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > > Subject: Blog Swap with Solve Climate > > From: "Teresa Herrmann" [7] > > Date: Fri, May 9, 2008 11:36 am > > To: [8]contrib@realclimate.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Dear Real Climate, > > We at SolveClimate.com frequently read your site and enjoy the scientific > > commentary that you add to the climate change debate. Yesterday's article > > describing a proposed bet against the authors of "Advancing decadal-scale > > climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector" was informative and funny, > > and was passed around the office several times. > > > > We were wondering if you would be interested in swapping blog rolls? We have > > had you listed on our blog roll for quite some time. > > > > Please consider. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Teresa Herrmann > > SolveClimate.com > > 314-517-2327 > > [9]teresa.sciencefirst@gmail.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: [10]mann@psu.edu > University Park, PA 16802-5013 > > [11]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: [12]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [13]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 397. 2008-05-11 18:21:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Sun, 11 May 2008 18:21:54 +0100 (BST) from: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Climate Audit and the Appendix Figure from Wengen to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil will check with John re the status of the reviewing. I am pretty confused now about my response to Holland, in the light of Susan's recent pronouncement on the matter. I have the response fully drafted and was waiting for opinions from you both - but now, even though I have told Holland that I will respond , I am now considering whether to do as Susan says and simply reply that the published information is the "appropriate" source of further study of the devlopment of the AR4 , and that I now consider it "inappropriate" for me to comment in any further detail. What do you think? I rather liked my responses! Keith > Keith, Tim, > CA are getting close to finding what the IPCC figure > from 1990 is based upon. They haven't found the original > source, nor any of the CRU pubs that show Lamb is wrong > anyway. > It is really quite amusing reading a few of the comments. > McIntyre's about figuring out how Lamb produced his > error bars should be put up on a wall!! > #50 and the link to Crispin Tickell's web page is > interesting - back to BAS pub. If you have time can you > follow this one up. I think CA have the dates wrong > and this should be after 1989. > > Also seems that CA readers don't understand what 'schematic' > means. > > Maybe you could contact Matthews to see where the reviews are? > > I was alerted to CA by Gavin and Mike. > > At KNMI all week. > > Cheers > Phil > > > 5158. 2008-05-12 08:51:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 12 May 2008 08:51:22 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Climate Audit and the Appendix Figure from Wengen to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Forward responses to me and Tim to read through. Maybe it's possible to pare these down to basics? Need to get back to David Palmer and Michael McGarvie about Susan's response. It seems pretty clear. Your co-authors don't want their emails sent on. See if this changes anything? Cheers Phil > Phil > > will check with John re the status of the reviewing. > > I am pretty confused now about my response to Holland, in the light of > Susan's recent pronouncement on the matter. I have the response fully > drafted and was waiting for opinions from you both - but now, even though > I have told Holland that I will respond , I am now considering whether to > do as Susan says and simply reply that the published information is the > "appropriate" source of further study of the devlopment of the AR4 , and > that I now consider it "inappropriate" for me to comment in any further > detail. What do you think? I rather liked my responses! > > Keith > >> Keith, Tim, >> CA are getting close to finding what the IPCC figure >> from 1990 is based upon. They haven't found the original >> source, nor any of the CRU pubs that show Lamb is wrong >> anyway. >> It is really quite amusing reading a few of the comments. >> McIntyre's about figuring out how Lamb produced his >> error bars should be put up on a wall!! >> #50 and the link to Crispin Tickell's web page is >> interesting - back to BAS pub. If you have time can you >> follow this one up. I think CA have the dates wrong >> and this should be after 1989. >> >> Also seems that CA readers don't understand what 'schematic' >> means. >> >> Maybe you could contact Matthews to see where the reviews are? >> >> I was alerted to CA by Gavin and Mike. >> >> At KNMI all week. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> > > > 4846. 2008-05-12 10:39:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon May 12 10:39:45 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: IN CONFIDENCE Fwd: Amended letter to: Tim Osborn ,Phil Jones Sorry - Holland is attached this time Here is what I have written - also attached is the Holland letter for context.I somehow feel some response is warranted - but am open now (in the light of Susan's comments ) to draft another letter saying that I have decided on reflection that it is not appropriate for me to answer the detailed questions. Subject: Amended letter Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 10:13:13 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Amended letter Thread-Index: Aci0EGVFttn10f0jSSWSKBVpEZGeyw== From: "Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI)" To: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" X-UEA-Spam-Score: -101.0 X-UEA-Spam-Level: --------------------------------------------------- X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Amended letter attached <> -- 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/ 5311. 2008-05-12 11:16:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:16:26 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Context for climate change research to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil. The 1996 Nature paper received a lot more attention than our 1995 Climate Dynamics paper, and has considerably more citations (by a factor of two). But I've always had some fondness for the Climate Dynamics paper, since it was the first to identify a combined GHG/sulfate aerosol fingerprint in observed near-surface temperature data. It's nice that it has now received some belated recognition... Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben et al, > Good news to hear! Might be worth mentioning Ben that the slightly > later paper > in Nature in 1996 won two awards (Mumm and a NOAA one). Anyway it's nice > to get recognition for a different paper than the 1996 one. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 20:50 07/05/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear Michael, >> >> Thank you very much for your email. My co-authors and I are honored >> that our 1995 Climate Dynamics paper was selected as one of 21 >> landmark studies on anthropogenic climate change. I would be very >> happy to write a brief account of the motivation for our 1995 paper, >> the scientific context, etc. I am on travel for the next few days, but >> hope that I'll be able to send you something by early next week. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben Santer >> >> Michael Luby wrote: >>> 7 May 2008 >>> Dr. Benjamin D. Santer >>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >>> Livermore, CA >>> Dear Dr. Santer, >>> Please allow me to introduce myself as an editor working with the >>> National Science Digital Library (NSDL), a multifaceted initiative of >>> the National Science Foundation. NSDL is a virtual library of select >>> resources organized in support of science and mathematics education, >>> available at no cost. >>> I am writing today in reference to "Climate Change and Anthropogenic >>> Greenhouse Warming, Select Papers 1824-1995, with Interpretive Essays," >>> http://wiki.nsdl.org/index.php/PALE:ClassicArticles/GlobalWarming >>> a new feature in the Library for undergraduate geoscience faculty and >>> students that connects research and teaching. >>> The collection brings together 21 landmark studies in full text that >>> appeared in the formal peer reviewed literature over nearly two >>> centuries. Each study includes a detailed, level-appropriate >>> overview, written by noted author and science historian Dr. James >>> Fleming of Colby College. I am pleased to report that your critical >>> article, "Towards the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic >>> effect on climate (1995)" from the journal "Climate Dynamics" has >>> been included. I am therefore writing to you today to ask if you >>> would consider offering any remarks/context that led you to undertake >>> the work described in your paper, e.g. convergence of data or trends >>> in other studies, hypotheses circulating among researchers at the >>> time, some specific breakthrough(s), and so forth. >>> We would be delighted if you would consider providing this >>> information in the module's dedicated blog, >>> http://expertvoices.nsdl.org/imprint/2008/03/17/climate-change-and-anthropogenic-greenhouse-warming/ >>> >>> as we hope to cultivate an online discussion related to the actual >>> hands-on investigations, informed by prior work, that brought >>> researchers to their current understanding of this critical problem. >>> Thank you for your time and kind consideration and please do not >>> hesitate to contact me with any questions. >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Michael Luby >>> ********************************************************* >>> Michael Luby >>> Executive Editor, NSDL Classic Articles in Context >>> Director, Publisher Affairs, National Science Digital Library >>> Columbia University Center for Digital Research and Scholarship >>> 12th Floor, 330 Fifth Avenue >>> New York, NY 10001 USA >>> T: 212.851.2840, F: 212.854.9099, E: ml1047@columbia.edu, W: >>> http://nsdl.org >>> NSDL: The National Science Foundation's online library of science, >>> technology, engineering, and mathematics education. >> >> >> -- >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2774. 2008-05-12 11:40:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:40:44 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Response to Reviewer 1 to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, The letter from Holland is terrible. I hope that the IPCC and UEA are helping you out. It all seems eerily reminiscent of the Second Assessment Report. Hope that you and Keith and Tim don't have to spend years of your lives justifying why changes were made to AR4 chapters... I did receive the second review of our IJoC paper today. It looks very positive. I think we're going to be in good shape. Cheers, Ben Phil Jones wrote: > > Ben, > This lot should be sufficient to deal with this reviewer. Let's hope > the other > reviewer (or other two) come through fairly soon. > > As you're probably aware there has been an awful lot of discussion > of the > Douglass et al paper on Climate Audit. A quick scan shows there are a lot > of people easily taken in out there. Douglass appear to claim that version > 4 wasn't there when they wrote the paper, but Leo says he recommended > they use it! Will also be interesting when the Allen/Sherwood paper > appears > in Nature/Geoscience. Also look out for Nature for May 29. > > If and when your paper comes out this CA discussion will all start again. > > Attachment for your eyes only. We're having to deal with this! > > Also Glenn has sent Tim a paper to review - which he's passed onto me > as well. > Glenn has decided he isn't up to making a decision on this one. It is > about > some of the text in Chapter 3 of WG1 of AR4! At least Glenn has > listened now. > This one also goes into chapter and verse of IPCC regulations, and why > text was added/deleted from the various drafts! > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 02:14 06/05/2008, you wrote: >> Dear folks, >> >> Here's a first draft of the response to Reviewer 1's comments on our >> IJoC manuscript. I've done some new work in order to address the >> Reviewer's concerns. I'm not sure whether the additional analyses will >> satisfy the Reviewer. I certainly hope they do. >> >> From my perspective, the Reviewer was overly concerned with technical >> details that have little or no impact on the overall conclusions of >> our paper. Having spent four months on this paper, I have limited >> enthusiasm for further exploration of these technical details. I feel >> that we've done enough. >> >> I've used some comments from Steve Sherwood in responding to points #5 >> and #7 raised by Reviewer 1, and comments from Carl Mears prompted the >> analysis described in point #1. >> >> Before making changes to the manuscript itself, I thought I'd wait for >> the other two sets of review comments that Glenn McGregor promised to >> send me. These have still not arrived, which is a bit worrying. >> >> With best regards, >> >> Ben >> >> (P.S.: I will be at the University of Santa Cruz from Wednesday >> through Friday of this week, and out of email contact. I'll be back in >> my office next Monday.) >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2433. 2008-05-12 11:41:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon May 12 11:41:20 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: Re SCM Entertainment to: "Carey, Gerald" Gerald I would prefer to let this offer lapse - not worth the bother even if the takeover does materialise. Thanks Keith At 11:05 12/05/2008, you wrote: Keith, Herewith e mail of 30 April. Regards. Gerald. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Carey, Gerald Sent: 30 April 2008 12:06 To: 'Keith Briffa' Subject: Re SCM Entertainment Dear Keith, SCI Entertainment have announced a placing and open offer of shares to raise £56.5m.The terms are 8 shares for every 9 shares held @35p.The current buying price in the market is 50.75p. As you may know,there is speculation the company is in bid talks.The cash raising equity issue is being made to address projected year end debt of £42m and a borrowing facility of £20m.The new management id reducing staffing levels by 25% and refocusing the business on its core franchises and key studios.This is sensible but a bit late.The management is forecasting revenues of c£200m and margins within the industry range. Last time, take over negotiations floundered on price.It is being speculated that current negotiations may be pitched around 80p.Taking up the open offer would be a gamble either that a take over goes through or that,if the company stays independent,the new management can improve the trading performance .Failing both,I would certainly advise against putting any more money into the company.As in all speculated take over situations,I do not know what will happen for sure.If you wish to gamble,please let me know and I will arrange for the open offer to be taken up.Based upon your holding of 393 shares in your ISA ,you are entitled to take up 349 shares at a cost of £122.15.We have plenty of cash here on deposit. I look forward to hearing fro you. Kind Regards. Gerald. Gerald Carey Divisional Director-Private Clients Tel:0845 213 3288 Fax:0845 213 3627 e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk This e-mail message, and any attachment, are intended only for and are confidential to the addressee. Any views expressed in this e-mail message or in any attachment are solely those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc or Brewin Dolphin Limited. 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 intended addressee who acts or refrains from acting on any information in this e-mail message or any attachment. Though our e-mail messages are checked for viruses, we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted by, through, with or in this e-mail message. Recipients are expected to take their own steps to ensure that e-mail messages are checked for, and free from, viruses. Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2685806, is the parent company of Brewin Dolphin Limited. Brewin Dolphin Limited is a member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority No. 124444, regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission for the provision of investment business, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2135876. VAT No. GB-609 8994 69. 12/05/200810:58:37 -- 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/ 5147. 2008-05-12 13:17:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 13:17:15 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter to: M.Mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk,David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, Phil Jones Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which letter - or indeed neither - from here on. regards Keith -- 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\KRB letter to DavidHolland- Version2 - 12.05.08.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\KRB letter to DavidHolland- Version1 - 12.05.08.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Hollandrequest1.pdf" 3643. 2008-05-12 14:02:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:02 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Keith, I'm sorry but all I received in relation to the longer version of the response letter is your cover note - the attachment didn't come through. Could you please send the second version separately please? Thanks! I have some initial thoughts on the letter from Mr. Holland to yourself but I will incorporate them into a fuller response once I receive the longer version of the draft response to Mr. Holland. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:17 PM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter > >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil > >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >regards >Keith > > > >-- >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/ > 735. 2008-05-12 14:56:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 14:56:26 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Keith, I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material released by them. They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I can do at the moment; I will report on their response asap. On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals contacted in regards their attitude towards the correspondence referred to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person' I should note that this exemption only applies to information obtained by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information generated within UEA. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter > >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >message attachments > >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil > >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >regards >Keith > > > >-- >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/ > 892. 2008-05-12 15:06:42 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Mon, 12 May 2008 15:06:42 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" , David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk Sorry, forgot the attachments first time round. Tim ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Michael, David and Jacquie, so far, we have had responses from 11 of our colleagues who are named on the FOIA request. Their very clear message to us is that we do not have their permission to release emails or other correspondence that they sent to us during the preparation of the IPCC report. Their full responses are contained in the attached file . In addition, we have received specific guidance from Susan Solomon, the co-chair of IPCC working group 1 (and hence in overall charge of the process for writing this report): "distribution of interim materials, or other forms of elaboration are not appropriate". See her full advice in the other attached file . The reason that we're also sending this to you, Jacquie, is that this is a matter of concern to the School, and is not solely an FOIA issue: were we to ignore the wishes of our colleagues and release their emails, it would be damaging to the School. These are all senior scientists within the international climate science field who we will be wishing to collaborate with in terms of joint funding, joint research and joint publications. Keith and I feel that it would seriously harm of future involvement in such collaborative work with these, and perhaps other, scientists if we do not consider their strongly held views regarding the collegial and private interactions that we held with them during the preparation of the IPCC report. We do, of course, want your advice with regards to the FOIA request and to what extent the views of our colleagues might change how UEA will respond to it. Please note that the FOIA request also asks for letters/emails between Tim (as well as Keith) and these 19 individuals and 5 organisations, thus doubling the effort needed to identify this information, and also that the request is not limited to these individuals/organisations but includes any such correspendence related to our work as IPCC authors and any internal CRU correspondence related to the IPCC process. Thus it would be a large undertaking to fulfill this FOIA request. The underlying purpose of this request, and related ones to Phil and subsquent requests that may follow, is to disrupt/delay our work and harm our reputations. While the ultimate aim of this is to bolster those who are campaigning against the message and recommendations of the IPCC, important side effects would be to the detriment of ENV and UEA. Best regards Tim and Keith At 11:36 08/05/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >Jacquie, > >I held a meeting this morning with Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil >Jones, to discuss a FOIA request which had come from one of the >contributors to the climateaudit.org website. Dave Palmer, the >University's FOIA expert, was also present. It was agreed that I >would alert you to this for your information. (You may recall that I >alerted you to a number of similar requests from another contributor >to the website last year, involving Phil.) > >We have agreed a plan of action to deal with this request within the >regulations. The request is unreasonable as it currently stands (it >asks for all letters and emails between Keith and 19 individuals >worldwide and 5 organisations over IPCC business). I will keep you >posted on this as necessary. > >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 > > > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FOI David Holland colleagues responses.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Advice from Susan Solomon.pdf" 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 3063. 2008-05-12 17:00:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 17:00:13 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Tim Osborn" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Tim, Thanks for all of this... I would, in usual circumstances, send a formal letter requesting input on the release of any information but given the responses you have received, I see no reason to do this. It is clear that the correspondents regard this information as 'confidential' which is one of the criteria by which we assess the confidentiality of information. In regards the consideration of a FOIA s.12 'appropriate limit' "exemption", the calculation of the limit is explained best in Dept. of Constitutional Affairs guidance: 2.3.2 The Regulations set out what may be taken into account when public authorities are estimating whether the appropriate limit has been exceeded. The costs are limited to those that an authority reasonably expects to incur in: * determining whether it holds the information requested, * locating the information or documents containing the information, * retrieving such information or documents, and * extracting the information from the document containing it (including editing or redacting information [Endnote 4]). ...... Endnotes 4. This can include the first time an individual working in the authority reads information to establish what is contained within a file or document, although any subsequent readings (e.g. to consider exemptions), or if the information is passed to others to read, should not be included. (Guidance on the application of the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (appropriate limit and fees) regulations 2004 [1]http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/practitioner/feesguidance.htm#en4) What we need to determine is whether the above activities, in total, will exceed the appropriate limit of £450 at £25/hour of effort (i.e. 18 hours). Given the number of potential documents that you have cited, I would think that merely a review of the documentation would essentially exceed 3 days of effort at 6 hours/day - correct? All of the above is based on the assumption that we will process this request under FOIA, not EIR. I am prepared to write to the requester to agree with him that, upon reflection, we should consider this request under FOIA. All in agreement with this approach? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [[2]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:32 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >[FOI-08-23] > >Dave, > >I'm not sure if you will be using the requested emails to contact >them or not, but if you do, would it be useful to cc us so that we >can all stay abreast of what is happening? > >As Keith says, the attachment contains our email message to these >colleagues and that lists the email addresses that we used. I've >just recalled, however, that two of them bounced back unsent: > >derzhang@msn.com > >and > >jouzel@lsce.saclay.cea.fr > >For the latter, I've now tried an alternative address which seems to >have worked: > > > >Hope that helps, > >Tim > >At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote: >>Thanks Dave >>I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent >> >>Keith >> >>At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: >>>Keith, >>>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material >released by them. >>>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I >can do at the >>>moment; I will report on their response asap. >>> >>>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals >>>contacted in regards their attitude towards the >correspondence referred >>>to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as >>>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would >>>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other >>>person' >>> >>>I should note that this exemption only applies to >information obtained >>>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information >generated >>>within UEA. >>> >>>Cheers, Dave >>> >>> >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Keith Briffa [[3]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >>> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >>> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >>> > >>> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >>> >message attachments >>> > >>> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil >>> > >>> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >>> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >>> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >>> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >>> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >>> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >>> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence >with regard to >>> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >>> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >>> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to >Holland's >>> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >>> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >>> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or >other of the >>> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >>> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >>> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >>> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would >consider the >>> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >>> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >>> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >>> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >>> >regards >>> >Keith >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >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/ >>> > >> >>-- >>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/ > >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: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > > 5035. 2008-05-12 18:52:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 12 May 2008 18:52:20 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Second review of IJoC paper to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, I just received the second review of our IJoC paper (see appended PDF file). This was sent to me directly by the Reviewer (Francis Zwiers). Francis's comments are very thorough and constructive. They are also quite positive. I don't see any show stoppers. I'll work on a response this week. The third review is still outstanding. I queried Glenn McGregor about this, and was told that we can expect the final review within the next 1-2 weeks. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\0805-may-01-ijoc-santer_etal.pdf" 2397. 2008-05-13 09:55:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 May 2008 09:55:39 -0400 from: David Easterling subject: JGR paper etc. to: Phil Jones Phil, Just letting you know I reviewed the paper Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature trends, with an emphasis on China excellent paper. Also I have a question regarding a certain skeptic named Stephen Wilde. I get emails from google when their web crawler finds mention of "global warming" and one was about an article in one of the right wing news web sites called something like "The truth on global warming and global cooling" by Stephen Wilde. Typical skeptics hogwash, but it claims he is a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968, but he is not listed in the Fellows of the RMS so is he a fraud? Last I am thinking about doing a short cautionary piece maybe for Science or Nature, looking at short trends (e.g. "the last 10 years show global cooling") and how they can lead to incorrect conclusions. Ron Stouffer showed a 10 year or so section of one of their A1B runs that has a strong downward trend, but the overall trend, of course, is warming of about 3C or so. I would also use sections from a control run to show that even an unforced climate can produce decade long trends both up and down. Thoughts? Cheers, Dave -- David R. Easterling, Ph.D Chief, Scientific Services Division NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 V: +1 828 271 4675 F: +1 828 271 4328 David.Easterling@noaa.gov 4943. 2008-05-13 12:22:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: santer1@llnl.gov, "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , Bruce Baker , David Helms , William R Moninger , Bradley Ballish , Ralph Petersen , "Grooters, Frank" , Carl Weiss , Michael Berechree date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:22:13 -0400 from: David Helms subject: Re: Second review of IJoC paper to: "Thomas.R.Karl" Hi Tom, I believe NCEP has found that, generally speaking, the AMDAR/MDCRS and radiosonde temperatures are treated in a similar fashion in assimilation. Like radiosonde which has varying performance from vendor to vendor, there are differences in performance between aircraft/series and temperature probes. Brad Ballish just had a paper approved for publication (in BAMS?) that identifies the performance differences between air carriers, aircraft type, and aircraft series. Unfortunately, we only know how the data compare with the model guess, but not necessarily absolute "truth". Hopefully Brad can share his paper with this distribution. Bill Moninger and Ralph Petersen may also have published recent papers on this issue they can share. Ralph has published papers that compare near simultaneously launched of Vaisala RS-92 sondes with ascending/descending B-757 aircraft, showing good data agreement. One should be mindful of the potential advantages of including AMDAR data as a climate resource in addition to radiosonde. 1. Data has been available in quantity since 1992 2. Data does not have the radiation issue as the TAT probe is shielded 3. Data are available at all local times, nearly 24*7*365, at hundreds of major airports internationally, thereby supporting the climate diurnal temperature problem 4. All NMCs keep databases of individual aircraft bias, based on recent performance of the each aircraft's data verses the model guess. These information would be very useful in considering candidate aircraft for a "climate quality" long term database for AMDAR temperature data I suspect that the reason why AMDAR data have not been used to track atmospheric change is because no-one in the climate community has ever made an effort to use these data. Availability of radiosonde data in the tropics (e.g. South America and Africa) is problematic. In response, EUCOS/E-AMDAR has been adding data collection over Africa using Air France, British Airways, and Lufthansa aircraft. I have proposed expanding the U.S. data collection to include the Caribbean and South America regions from United, Delta, Continental, etc, aircraft, but have not received support for this expansion. WMO AMDAR Panel is moving to add additional regional AMDAR Programs in the developing countries, similar to the successful expansion in eastern Asia. AMDAR data are not a replacement for radiosonde, but these data certainly can add to the climate record if the data are properly processed/QC'd. Regards, Dave Helms Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > Ben, > > Regarding the last comment by Francis -- Commercial aircraft data have > not been demonstrated to be very reliable w/r to tracking changes in > temperatures in the US. A paper by Baker a few years ago focused on US > data showed errors in the 1C range. Not sure about the tropics and how > many flights you could get. I have copied Bruce Baker for a copy of > that article. > > Recently David Helms has been leading and effort to improve this. He > may have more info related to global aircraft data. I will ask Bruce > to see what data we have, just for your info. > > Tom > > P.S. Nice review by Francis, especially like his idea w/r to stat tests. > > > > Ben Santer said the following on 5/12/2008 9:52 PM: >> Dear folks, >> >> I just received the second review of our IJoC paper (see appended PDF >> file). This was sent to me directly by the Reviewer (Francis Zwiers). >> Francis's comments are very thorough and constructive. They are also >> quite positive. I don't see any show stoppers. I'll work on a >> response this week. >> >> The third review is still outstanding. I queried Glenn McGregor about >> this, and was told that we can expect the final review within the >> next 1-2 weeks. >> >> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > > *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 > 1422. 2008-05-13 12:28:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 13 May 2008 12:28:14 +0100 from: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request to: "Tim Osborn" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Tim, Keith and Phil, I am very concerned, as you are, about the potential dangers associated with this issue, and the School will do everything it can to protect you and the CRU /UEA's reputation in the face of this threat. I strongly support the decision not to release this correspondence in response to the FOIA request. Yours Jacquie -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 12 May 2008 15:07 To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request Sorry, forgot the attachments first time round. Tim ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Michael, David and Jacquie, so far, we have had responses from 11 of our colleagues who are named on the FOIA request. Their very clear message to us is that we do not have their permission to release emails or other correspondence that they sent to us during the preparation of the IPCC report. Their full responses are contained in the attached file . In addition, we have received specific guidance from Susan Solomon, the co-chair of IPCC working group 1 (and hence in overall charge of the process for writing this report): "distribution of interim materials, or other forms of elaboration are not appropriate". See her full advice in the other attached file . The reason that we're also sending this to you, Jacquie, is that this is a matter of concern to the School, and is not solely an FOIA issue: were we to ignore the wishes of our colleagues and release their emails, it would be damaging to the School. These are all senior scientists within the international climate science field who we will be wishing to collaborate with in terms of joint funding, joint research and joint publications. Keith and I feel that it would seriously harm of future involvement in such collaborative work with these, and perhaps other, scientists if we do not consider their strongly held views regarding the collegial and private interactions that we held with them during the preparation of the IPCC report. We do, of course, want your advice with regards to the FOIA request and to what extent the views of our colleagues might change how UEA will respond to it. Please note that the FOIA request also asks for letters/emails between Tim (as well as Keith) and these 19 individuals and 5 organisations, thus doubling the effort needed to identify this information, and also that the request is not limited to these individuals/organisations but includes any such correspendence related to our work as IPCC authors and any internal CRU correspondence related to the IPCC process. Thus it would be a large undertaking to fulfill this FOIA request. The underlying purpose of this request, and related ones to Phil and subsquent requests that may follow, is to disrupt/delay our work and harm our reputations. While the ultimate aim of this is to bolster those who are campaigning against the message and recommendations of the IPCC, important side effects would be to the detriment of ENV and UEA. Best regards Tim and Keith At 11:36 08/05/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >Jacquie, > >I held a meeting this morning with Keith Briffa, Tim Osborn and Phil >Jones, to discuss a FOIA request which had come from one of the >contributors to the climateaudit.org website. Dave Palmer, the >University's FOIA expert, was also present. It was agreed that I >would alert you to this for your information. (You may recall that I >alerted you to a number of similar requests from another contributor >to the website last year, involving Phil.) > >We have agreed a plan of action to deal with this request within the >regulations. The request is unreasonable as it currently stands (it >asks for all letters and emails between Keith and 19 individuals >worldwide and 5 organisations over IPCC business). I will keep you >posted on this as necessary. > >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 > > > 3878. 2008-05-13 15:15:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 13 May 2008 15:15:26 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Ian Harris to: j.darch@uea.ac.uk Hi Janice I reported to Board today that we have received an FTC1 form for Harry - whose contract is due to expire on 31 October. A considerable time ago, Board agreed that Harry should be moved onto an indefinite contract - and my understanding was that this was in progress. But it seems not to have happened. Do you know the reason for this? Harry's salary is currently coming from Tim's R14433 NERC contract, and the plan is for him to then move onto ClimateCost - one of the new FP7 projects. I am still waiting to hear the start date of this. At Board today, Tim and I agreed to review the situation at the end of May and, if necessary, talk to Phil about some USDoE funding for Harry (he is already named on this). Best wishes, Clare 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 4277. 2008-05-13 17:16:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:16:46 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" Keith, I spoke with Dave earlier and he made some really useful points that I asked him to put in an email to everyone - he was hoping to get around to that today sometime. The crux was that if we are saying no to the request on the grounds of confidentiality, are there issues in the longer draft response that might work against that approach response? I am sure that Dave will put it more eloquently than I have - hopefully his email will arrive in the near future. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 13 May 2008 17:12 To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] Could just prompt again for a response from Phil and David in particular , for an opinion on which response I should send to Holland - of the two alternatives I showed you. Thanks Keith At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote: >Thanks Dave >I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent > >Keith > >At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: >>Keith, >>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material released by them. >>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I can do at the >>moment; I will report on their response asap. >> >>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals >>contacted in regards their attitude towards the correspondence referred >>to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as >>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would >>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other >>person' >> >>I should note that this exemption only applies to information obtained >>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information generated >>within UEA. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >> > >> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >> >message attachments >> > >> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil >> > >> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence with regard to >> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to Holland's >> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or other of the >> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would consider the >> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >> >regards >> >Keith >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >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/ -- 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/ 2656. 2008-05-13 17:52:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tim Osborn" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 13 May 2008 17:52:36 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Keith Briffa" Keith, Apologies - have been tied up with project management & FOI matters yesterday and today. Several points: The fuller response certainly has the advantage of being 'responsive' and shows our willingness to cooperate. It also may go way to removing the need for the FOIA request in the requester's eyes (and may pull some of the 'sting' from requester's approach). However, there are several concerns with it: 1. Policy - Susan Solomon seems to have concerns regarding the transmission: "Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the comments or the author responses, would not be appropriate. All of the comments, and all of the authors' responses, have been made available. These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the reference to the web pages where this can be found." (Solomon email to Mitchell, quoted in Solomon email of 09/05/08) Would your letter contravene the wishes of Susan (and other IPCC authors/collaborators), and, if so, what would be the effect upon UEA and it's role within IPCC? 2. FOIA issue - I am obviously not aware of the substantive scientific issues under discussion here but I should note that other IPCC contributors have explicitly stated that they consider their correspondence 'confidential'. Is there anything in your letter that would compromise that confidentiality? One of the 'tests' for common law confidentiality (which is the test for s.41 of FOIA) is that we treat information in a confidential manner consistently and over a period of time. Were we to 'reveal' something that would be in any of the 'confidential' correspondence, this would obviously lessen our ability to credibly claim confidentiality. 3. General - How big a 'target' are you making yourself with this letter? There is a danger of being sucked into a spiral of correspondence that will, ultimately, not satisfy Mr. Holland and take our time. I think My starting point is to share information (ergo, I make a lousy bureaucrat!) but I am concerned that we need to remember our priorities here - if maintenance of the good working relationship within the IPCC community is paramount, then let's ensure the answer meets that requirement first and then handles the other purposes of the answer..... Being a lawyer once, I wonder if there is a 'middle way' in which you could meet the above concerns but yet provide something other than a blanket 'no' (unless, of course, this letter is that 'middle way'). The information that the requester wants is in his letter of 31 March - it's clear that the FOIA request has been made in expectation that he will not get an answer, or an answer that is satisfactory. One other option - point out that you are bound by your commitments to the collegiality of the IPCC process and bounce your letter to Susan Solomon to answer on behalf of IPCC.... Doubt it would make you popular with her however.... Hope this helps... Cheers, Dave PS. Note your letterhead lacks the 'new' UEA logo - copies are available on the web... I use 'em on my FOI correspondence... >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:12 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >[FOI-08-23] > >Could just prompt again for a response from Phil and David in >particular , for an opinion on which response I should send to >Holland - of the two alternatives I showed you. Thanks >Keith > >At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote: >>Thanks Dave >>I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent >> >>Keith >> >>At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: >>>Keith, >>>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material >released by them. >>>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I >can do at the >>>moment; I will report on their response asap. >>> >>>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals >>>contacted in regards their attitude towards the >correspondence referred >>>to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as >>>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would >>>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other >>>person' >>> >>>I should note that this exemption only applies to >information obtained >>>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information >generated >>>within UEA. >>> >>>Cheers, Dave >>> >>> >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >>> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >>> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >>> > >>> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >>> >message attachments >>> > >>> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil >>> > >>> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >>> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >>> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >>> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >>> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >>> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >>> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence >with regard to >>> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >>> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >>> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to >Holland's >>> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >>> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >>> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or >other of the >>> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >>> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >>> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >>> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would >consider the >>> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >>> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >>> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >>> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >>> >regards >>> >Keith >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >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/ > >-- >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/ > > 1866. 2008-05-14 14:50:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Wed May 14 14:50:15 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter [FOI-08-23] to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Keith Briffa" Keith, Dave (cc Phil, Michael), many thanks for your guidance through this potential minefield, Dave! I've just had a good half hour to look through your concerns and Keith's response etc. My view is that the fuller response might need to be modified (Q1 and Q2: see below), but it is probably preferable to do this and then send that rather than the short version. 1. Policy and Susan Solomon: I think Keith's answers to Q1 and Q2 may fall into the unwanted elaboration that Susan requests we avoid; they cover more than just Keith. Perhaps Keith's final sentence in answer to Q1 is sufficient on its own to answer Q1 and Q2 jointly, since that deals specifically with just Keith. Q3 is focussed on Keith's own work, so is fine. Q4-Q10 do not represent any further elaboration, so are fine too. 2. Confidentiality: given that very little information is actually provided in Keith's answers, providing them doesn't seem to compromise our claim for confidentiality. 3. Target for further correspondence: the final paragraph attempts to curtail the interaction at this point, so again I think it is ok. So, I suggest modified answers to Q1 and Q2 that essentially avoid answering those questions at all (since Keith should avoid elaborating about other people's actions, and these questions deal with other people's actions) and then using the letter as a "middle way" that won't compromise our working relationship with colleagues. Hope this helps! Tim At 17:52 13/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Keith, Apologies - have been tied up with project management & FOI matters yesterday and today. Several points: The fuller response certainly has the advantage of being 'responsive' and shows our willingness to cooperate. It also may go way to removing the need for the FOIA request in the requester's eyes (and may pull some of the 'sting' from requester's approach). However, there are several concerns with it: 1. Policy - Susan Solomon seems to have concerns regarding the transmission: "Further explanations, elaboration, or re-interpretations of the comments or the author responses, would not be appropriate. All of the comments, and all of the authors' responses, have been made available. These are the proper source for anyone seeking to understand what comments were made and how the authors dealt with them, and it would be inappropriate to provide more information beyond the reference to the web pages where this can be found." (Solomon email to Mitchell, quoted in Solomon email of 09/05/08) Would your letter contravene the wishes of Susan (and other IPCC authors/collaborators), and, if so, what would be the effect upon UEA and it's role within IPCC? 2. FOIA issue - I am obviously not aware of the substantive scientific issues under discussion here but I should note that other IPCC contributors have explicitly stated that they consider their correspondence 'confidential'. Is there anything in your letter that would compromise that confidentiality? One of the 'tests' for common law confidentiality (which is the test for s.41 of FOIA) is that we treat information in a confidential manner consistently and over a period of time. Were we to 'reveal' something that would be in any of the 'confidential' correspondence, this would obviously lessen our ability to credibly claim confidentiality. 3. General - How big a 'target' are you making yourself with this letter? There is a danger of being sucked into a spiral of correspondence that will, ultimately, not satisfy Mr. Holland and take our time. I think My starting point is to share information (ergo, I make a lousy bureaucrat!) but I am concerned that we need to remember our priorities here - if maintenance of the good working relationship within the IPCC community is paramount, then let's ensure the answer meets that requirement first and then handles the other purposes of the answer..... Being a lawyer once, I wonder if there is a 'middle way' in which you could meet the above concerns but yet provide something other than a blanket 'no' (unless, of course, this letter is that 'middle way'). The information that the requester wants is in his letter of 31 March - it's clear that the FOIA request has been made in expectation that he will not get an answer, or an answer that is satisfactory. One other option - point out that you are bound by your commitments to the collegiality of the IPCC process and bounce your letter to Susan Solomon to answer on behalf of IPCC.... Doubt it would make you popular with her however.... Hope this helps... Cheers, Dave PS. Note your letterhead lacks the 'new' UEA logo - copies are available on the web... I use 'em on my FOI correspondence... >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 5:12 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >[FOI-08-23] > >Could just prompt again for a response from Phil and David in >particular , for an opinion on which response I should send to >Holland - of the two alternatives I showed you. Thanks >Keith > >At 15:10 12/05/2008, Keith Briffa wrote: >>Thanks Dave >>I think your request is answered in the attachment Tim just sent >> >>Keith >> >>At 14:56 12/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) wrote: >>>Keith, >>>I have emailed the Met Office in regards the material >released by them. >>>They won't accept direct phone calls so this is the best I >can do at the >>>moment; I will report on their response asap. >>> >>>On a related matter, I will need contact details for the individuals >>>contacted in regards their attitude towards the >correspondence referred >>>to in the request. This will go to the issue of 'confidentiality' as >>>used in the s.41 FOIA exemption for material whose release 'would >>>constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other >>>person' >>> >>>I should note that this exemption only applies to >information obtained >>>by UEA from other persons; it does not extend to information >generated >>>within UEA. >>> >>>Cheers, Dave >>> >>> >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >>> >Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 2:23 PM >>> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn >>> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >>> >Subject: Proposed alternative response to Holland letter >>> > >>> >Sorry people correct versions now attached - please delete previous >>> >message attachments >>> > >>> >Dear Michael, David,Tim, and Phil >>> > >>> >attached , as promised , are the original letter from David Holland >>> >to myself, along with two alternative responses. I am waiting >>> >comments from Phil , but both myself and Tim lean towards showing >>> >some degree of apparent cooperation by sending the longer ,detailed >>> >response. Tim is forwarding the combined responses from our >>> >collaborators/co-authors regarding our earlier message asking their >>> >opinion were we to send copies of their correspondence >with regard to >>> >Holland's FOIA request. You will see that they are universally >>> >opposed. Please also see the message from Susan Solomon (via Tim), >>> >copying her response to John Mitchell's message related to >Holland's >>> >earlier request to him. The FOIA request is , I know, separate from >>> >the issue of the specific list of questions from Holland of me, but >>> >we must also consider whether my decision to send one or >other of the >>> >alternative responses will influence our decision of how to respond >>> >to the FOI request. My interpretation of Susan's message (though >>> >originally drafted in response to John Mitchell - a review editor >>> >rather than a lead author of the IPCC) is that she would >consider the >>> >shorter response appropriate. If I sent this it would certainly not >>> >be considered sufficient to negate the FOIA request. I would value >>> >your opinion as to the best course of action to take ,i.e. which >>> >letter - or indeed neither - from here on. >>> >regards >>> >Keith >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >-- >>> >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/ >>> > >> >>-- >>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/ > >-- >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/ > > 4602. 2008-05-15 15:10:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:10:50 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: Review Received by Geophysical Research Letters to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12108642502325251" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 15:10:50 UT Message-Id: <8121086425042@gems> Dear Dr. Briffa: Thank you for your review of "Annual temperatures during 2.5 millennia in the Eastern Tibetan Plateau inferred from Tree rings" by LIU YU, Zhisheng An, Hans Linderholm, Deliang Chen, Huiming Song, Qiufang Cai, Junyan Sun, and Hua Tian [Paper #2008GL034169], which we have safely received. A copy of this review is attached below for your reference. Thank you for your time and effort! Sincerely, James Famiglietti Editor Geophysical Research Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Science Category: Science Category 2 Presentation Category: Presentation Category C Annotated Manuscript: No Anonymous: No Referrals: No Confidential Referrals: Highlight: No Highlight: The material on which it is based - with potential to produce the first more than millennium , continuous tree-ring-based climate reconstruction for this area. However, IN ITS PRESENT FORM IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PUBLICATION -please see detailed review. Formal Review: I wish to introduce my comments by saying that the subject of the analysis described, i.e. that of the development and initial analysis of a long tree-ring chronology for the Eastern Tibetan Plateau (ETP) is certainly an important one and one that is relevant for publication in this journal. However, there are a number of issues, associated with the methodology of producing the chronology, and the consequent validity of its interpretation as a record of past temperature variability, that must be recognised and addressed before I would sanction much of the interpretation placed on these data by the authors. The potential importance of the material they have assembled is great and for this reason it is incumbent on them to make explicit reference to these issues and preferably even undertake additional/alternative analyses to prevent (possible) misinterpretation of their results as currently presented. The issues to which I refer include first, Chronology Production, specifically the issues of standardisation and variance correction; second, the specific interpretation of the produced long series in terms of climate; and third, the authors' comparison of their data with other series of reconstructions and the discussion on prospective solar and carbon dioxide causes of the observed multidecadal timescale variability. I will deal with each of these issues in turn: Chronology Production The 'take home message' that the authors stress and hence the essence of their results in that the 20th Century was not the warmest period in the last 1-2 millennia. This conclusion is unsound when their tree-ring data are standardised using the option they have chosen i.e. Cook's ARSTND software with so-called 'conservative' standardisation curves (negative exponentials or straight line - especially any slope straight line). This approach explicitly restricts the retention of low-frequency variance in the chronology and can cause serious end-effect distortion to chronology indices where strong recent warming trends may be affecting recent increasing growth trends. In other words, despite their desire to retain long-timescale information (vital if their conclusions are to be valid), their choice of data processing likely negates the basis for the claims they make. At the very least they should acknowledge the probability - but more correctly, they should re-possess their data using 'Regional Curve Standardisation' or RCS (see Briffa et al. 1992: Climate Dynamics 7,111-119 and Cook et al.1995: Holocene 5,229-237). Even using RCS may be problematic with their data because of the clearly different source material (modern versus tomb-derived wood samples), but provided they apply the technique with care, they will have a much firmer basis for comparing 20th with 5th to 9th century growth rates - something which is most definitely compromised by the processing technique they have adopted. Another issue, and one which they allude to, is the very variable replication rate of the sample material through time. With such large differences (from virtually one to more than 150 samples) in sample replication between the roughly medieval time and earlier and recent times it is important to correct the chronology variance for changing sample size through time (see Osborn at al, 1997: Dendrochronologia15,89-99). I am aware that the authors make passing reference to the possibility of a problem of varying (replication-related) variance at specific times in their text. However, this is such a potentially significant influence that it can not be left as it is. It is not clear to what extent variance correction will affect the large variability apparent in the 7th to 9th centuries, but it is not sufficient to leave this question unexplored - particularly when much of the high variability in the chronology is apparent at just these times. Interpretation in Terms of climate The authors do not provide sufficient information regarding the justification and statistical validity of their interpretation of the chronology in terms of annual mean temperatures. It is usual to provide a correlation matrix where individual monthly climate variables or various seasonal averages are compared against the tree-ring data to demonstrate, at least empirically, the potential associations between growth and possible seasonal temperature and other (e.g. precipitation) forcing. No such evidence is given here. Instead we are informed that the ring width is driven by prior year mean temperatures. We have no data to gauge the relative importance or justification of this choice. Nor are we told precisely what this season is (i.e. calendar year or 12-month average from some month other than January?). There is also clearly a problem with the strong common trend in both the observational and tree-ring time series (as shown in Figure 1 of the supplementary material). This appears to show that the association is dominated by trend and it is hard to conceive that the assumed link with temperature , if real, would not show up as a high interannual match and not only in the low-frequency . It is therefore necessary to calculate separate correlations for the interannual data to quantify the extent to which this is so. At the very least, the significance levels reported for the correlations between various meteorological stations and the ring-width indices are clearly overstated because of this clear co-incidental trend in both data sets the statistical significance values quoted need to be adjusted for the presence of common significant autocorrelation in the tree-ring and climate series. This is also true of all the correlations quoted in Tables 1and 3 of the Supplementary material. I am also highly dubious about the validity of the claimed verification statistics (Table 2) based on bootstrapping when the series are clearly both affected by strong positive trends. In short much more attention and much more detail is required to justify the interpretation in terms of annual temperatures , and to demonstrate an absence of association with other (e.g. summer season temperature) climate drivers. Comparison with other Reconstructions and Solar and CO2 series This is perhaps the weakest and clearly superficial part of the paper and requires serious reconsideration and possibly reanalysis. Many of the series against which the ETP series is compared have been specifically processed using RCS methods (see earlier comments). They also represent calibrations directly against large-scale temperatures and this may render their amplitudes of variability incompatible for direct comparison with that of the ETP series which is calibrated against a single, local temperature record. The comparison of these series is anyway rather subjective and vague - though I note the correlations in Supplement Table 4 - though again the significance levels are not valid and require adjustment to allow for common autocorrelation. I also find the discussion on the association between solar variability and carbon dioxide totally subjective, and unconvincing. I have taken some time to detail problems with this manuscript, primarily because I consider the underlying data and potential implications of rigorous evaluation to be of importance. So much so that I urge the authors to consider my comments and revise their analyses and description of results accordingly. My comments are intended to be constructive. I would be happy to discuss them further and to this end I am happy for my identity to be revealed to the authors. I sincerely hope that they will interpret my remarks in the manner in which they were intended. Sincerely K. R. Briffa 93. 2008-05-16 10:03:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:03:04 +0100 from: "Carey, Gerald" subject: RE: Re YourISA to: "Keith Briffa" Keith, Thank you. I have now sold and bought the holdings in Finsbury Growth & Income Trust and Murray International Trust to transfer them into your ISA.The contract notes are in the post.The total cost of the 2 purchases is £5,794 so that a further £1,406 may be subscribed before the end of the current tax year to make up the maximum £7,200 subscription.Thank you for mentioning that you may be able to supply the extra cash in due course. I confirm I have lapsed the SCM rights. Best Wishes. Gerald. -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 15 May 2008 12:11 To: Carey, Gerald Subject: Re: Re YourISA Gerald please go ahead with your suggested action. I may be able to supply the extra cash later. Also, my email to you regarding the SCM rights bounced back to me - in case it did not arrive , I wish to let the rights lapse. thanks Keith At 16:16 13/05/2008, you wrote: >Dear Keith, >Thank you for completing and returning our ISA application form >requesting the £7,200 subscription be raised from your portfolio. >I suggest the holdings of Finsbury Growth & Income Trust and Murray >International Trust be moved from your portfolio into your ISA.We are >not allowed to simply transfer the holdings and we are required to sell >the holdings from your portfolio and buy them in your ISA under arms >length transactions under the HMRC rules which govern ISAs.To keep the >costs down,we would do the purchases for £nil commission. >This would account for about £5,600 of the subscription.It is less easy >to identify how best to make up the balance of about £1,600 as all the >other holdings in your portfolio are quite small in value bar Adnams >which is not a qualifying investment for an ISA.I suggest we make just >the 2 transfers at this stage.It is possible to make up the balance of >the subscription at any time before the end of the current tax year.I >know that you are not sure about holding Adnams shares and if you do >wish to sell some or all of the holding ,this might provide the >necessary cash funds before next April. >I look forward to hearing from you. >Kind Regards. >Gerald > >Gerald Carey >Divisional Director-Private Clients >Tel:0845 213 3288 >Fax:0845 213 3627 >e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk > > >This e-mail message, and any attachment, are intended only for and are >confidential to the addressee. Any views expressed in this e-mail >message or in any attachment are solely those of the individual sender, >except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of >Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc or Brewin Dolphin Limited. 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 intended >addressee who acts or refrains from acting on any information in this >e-mail message or any attachment. > >Though our e-mail messages are checked for viruses, we do not accept >liability for any viruses which may be transmitted by, through, with or >in this e-mail message. Recipients are expected to take their own steps >to ensure that e-mail messages are checked for, and free from, viruses. > >Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, >London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. >2685806, is the parent company of Brewin Dolphin Limited. > >Brewin Dolphin Limited is a member of the London Stock Exchange, >authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority No. >124444, regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the >Jersey Financial Services Commission for the conduct of business in >Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the Guernsey Financial Services >Commission for the provision of investment business, registered office >at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and >Wales Company No. >2135876. VAT No. GB-609 8994 69. > >13/05/200816:09:58 -- 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/ This e-mail message, and any attachment, are intended only for and are confidential to the addressee. Any views expressed in this e-mail message or in any attachment are solely those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc or Brewin Dolphin Limited. 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 intended addressee who acts or refrains from acting on any information in this e-mail message or any attachment. Though our e-mail messages are checked for viruses, we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted by, through, with or in this e-mail message. Recipients are expected to take their own steps to ensure that e-mail messages are checked for, and free from, viruses. Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2685806, is the parent company of Brewin Dolphin Limited. Brewin Dolphin Limited is a member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority No. 124444, regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission for the provision of investment business, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2135876. VAT No. GB-609 8994 69. 16/05/200809:56:35 971. 2008-05-16 11:21:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn ,P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri, 16 May 2008 11:21:53 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Response to Holland - FYI to: susan.solomon@noaa.gov,john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr,Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck ,David Rind , rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de,Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov,joos , "Ricardo Villalba" , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr,dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca,rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru,derzhang@msn.com Dear Colleagues and fellow IPCC Chapter 6 authors For you information, I am copying my response to a letter I received from someone who is actively engaged on behalf of the Climate Change Sceptic lobby, here and abroad. As Tim and I informed you earlier, this person has also applied under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), for access to all of our email correspondence in relation to our roles as IPCC authors. This FOIA request is being considered by the relevant authorities at our university, but on advice from them and after discussion with my colleagues here, I have decided to send the attached brief personal response to the initial letter (also attached for reference). In this I take the opportunity to correct one widely promulgated erroneous notion that certain data were "censored" in the production of Figure 6.10b. I note and agree with Susan's opinion that the appropriate source of information for research into the development of the final chapter text is the web archive of FOD and SOD comments and responses. By providing this reply, however, it is hoped that it will be considered that I did not dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. My responses are intended to offer some personal comments while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. I hope that none of you will consider that this letter in any way compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be entered into on the matter. I realise some of you may not agree with entering into any discussion at all and all I can say is that this has until now been my own opinion and the decision to send this response was not taken lightly. Also , thanks to each of you for your responses to the letter Tim and I sent regarding the FOIA request. Please be assured that Tim and I are determined to respect your wishes fully. best wishes Keith -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\KRB letter to DavidHolland - 15.05.08.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\documents and settings\tim osborn\my documents\eudora\attach\Briffa011.pdf" 4759. 2008-05-16 13:02:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: susan.solomon@noaa.gov, john.f.mitchell@metoffice.gov.uk, jean.jouzel@lsce.ipsl.fr, Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck , David Rind , Bette Otto-Bleisner , cddhr@giss.nasa.gov, joos , Ricardo Villalba , Valerie Masson-Delmotte , Dominique Raynaud , jean-claude.duplessy@lsce.cnrs-gif.fr, dolago@uonbi.ac.ke, peltier@atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca, rramesh@prl.res.in, olgasolomina@yandex.ru, derzhang@msn.com, Tim Osborn , P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk, "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:02:58 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Response to Holland - FYI to: Keith Briffa Keith, fine with me. Astonishing that the skeptics scene is still obsessed with the hockey stick! I just got an angry mail by someone about it yesterday, who claimed IPCC had "withdrawn" the hockey stick, so how could I possibly still defend it on my website! Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 5179. 2008-05-16 13:42:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace , Phil Jones date: Fri, 16 May 2008 13:42:24 +0100 from: John Kennedy subject: Re: Press release to: David Thompson All, I've attached the latest version of the press release. I've stripped off the additional information and removed some of the text about keying in new data. The press office and other interested parties haven't seen it yet, which is the next stage. John On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 10:50 +0100, David Thompson wrote: > > > All, > > > I've made a few tweaks to Mike's version. Text is below. > > > I was also uncomfortable with the Hadley Centre propaganda. I think it > would have been a lightning rod for the critics. > > > -Dave > > > Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary > fluctuations in global temperature due to El Niño and transient > weather patterns, researchers at Colorado State University, the > University of Washington, the UK Met Office and the University of East > Anglia have highlighted a number of sudden drops in global > temperature. > > > Most of these drops coincide with the eruptions of large tropical > volcanoes and are evident in temperatures measured over both the > world’s land and ocean areas. But the largest drop, occurring towards > the end of 1945, is unrelated to any known volcanic eruption and is > not apparent over land. It appears to arise from an artificial and > temporary cooling caused by an abrupt change in the mix of US and UK > ships reporting temperatures at the end of the Second World War. > > > The majority of sea temperature measurements available in > international data bases between 1941 and 1945 are from US ships. The > crews of US ships measured the temperature of the water before it was > used to cool the ships engine. Because of warmth coming from the ship, > the water was often a little warmer than the true sea temperature. At > the end of 1945 the number of US observations in the data base dropped > rapidly while the number of UK observations increased. UK ships > measured the temperature of water samples collected using special > buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled onto the > deck often caused these measurements to be cooler than the actual sea > temperature. The sudden drop in global-mean temperatures at the end of > World War 2 is due to the sudden but uncorrected change from US engine > room measurements - which are biased warm - to UK measurements - which > are biased cool. > > > Although the drop in 1945 is large in climate-change terms – abouut > 0.3°C – its effect is likely to be largest during the period > immediately after the Second World War and very small by the 1960s, > when better-insulated buckets came into use and a there was a more > varied mix of measurements from different national merchant shipping > fleets. Correcting the drop will change the character of middle > century temperature variablity during the period following World War > 2, but it is expected to have little effect on 20th century warming > trends, which are corroborated by independent records of air > temperatures taken over both land and sea. > > > > Climate researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre are working to > reduce the biases in the temperature datasets. In the past two years, > many hundreds of thousands of observations have been keyed in from > hand-written log books that were kept aboard ships in the UK navy, > particularly for the periods of sparse marine coverage, such as the > two World War periods. Fixing the drop is unlikely to radically alter > our understanding of climate change, but having a more accurate record > of the real temperature change during the mid-20th century could > provide insight into the more subtle mechanisms that caused the early > rise in temperatures to the 1920s and the subsequent flattening of the > temperature curve that lasted into the early 1970s. > > > > Extra information: > > > Marine temperatures are much more prone to systematic biases arising > from changes in the way the measurements are taken and the platforms > used than are land air temperatures. For example, since the 1970s, > sea surface temperatures have been estimated from satellites, but > these need considerable adjustment (sometimes in excess of 2 deg C) to > be comparable with ship and buoy measurements. The satellite sees only > the top millimetre of the ocean surface, while traditional ship-based > sampling sees the top few metres. A change is gradually talking place > across the world’s oceans in the way sea surface temperature > measurements are made during the last ten years: the number of ship- > based measurements has reduced slightly, but there is a dramatic > increase in the number of measurements coming from automatic > measurements taken on fixed and drifting buoys. Work is underway to > determine the size of the difference between the ships and buoys, as > the bias between the two could be of the same order as that in the > 1940s. -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from http://www.hadobs.org Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\DraftPressStatement_v5.doc" 2363. 2008-05-16 16:29:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:29:06 UT from: grlonline@agu.org subject: 2008GL034552 (Editor - Fabio Florindo): Request to Review from to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1210955346954815" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.01 (F2.74; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 16:29:06 UT Message-Id: <42121095534686@gems> Dear Dr. Jones: Would you be willing and available to review "Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age type events in tropical South America inferred from an ice core ammonium record" by Thomas Kellerhals, Sabina Brütsch, Michael Sigl, Stefanie Knüsel, Heinz Gäggeler, and Margit Schwikowski, submitted for possible publication in the Geophysical Research Letters. The manuscript's abstract is: We present a reconstruction of tropical South American temperature anomalies over the last ~1600 years. The reconstruction is based on a highly resolved and carefully dated ammonium record from an ice core that was drilled in 1999 on Nevado Illimani in the eastern Bolivian Andes. It reveals that Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age type episodes are distinguishable in tropical South America, a region for which until now only very limited temperature proxy data exist. For the time period from about AD 1050 to 1300, our reconstruction shows relatively warm conditions that are followed by cooler conditions from the 15th to the 17th century, when temperatures dropped by up to 0.5 degree C below the 1961-1990 average. The last decades of the past millennium are characterized by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the last ~1600 years. 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=A7K1Dulv2A6BFkh5D1A9TLZGUWrlBGgFpcNbWG7Ro QZ 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=A6K6Dulv2A5BFkh6E3A9TLZGUWrlBGgFpcNbWG7Ro QZ 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, Fabio Florindo Editor Geophysical Research Letters 4744. 2008-05-17 04:39:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 17 May 2008 04:39:04 -0400 (EDT) from: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz subject: JOC-08-0029 - review to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 17-May-2008 Dear Dr Tim Osborn Thanks again for agreeing to review this paper for the International Journal of Climatology. I know you are very busy and that is easy to overlook review deadlines, so I hope you don't mind a gentle reminder. Even a brief review will be useful. Thanks in anticipation for your valuable help in the review process and for taking the time to read and comment on the paper. For fast-track access to the manuscript, you may click on the link below (which will take you right to the manuscript and review scoresheet). http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc?URL_MASK=8TywJsGnxNb9HZhKdGRn Best regards Prof. Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology 4673. 2008-05-17 09:57:39 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 17 May 2008 09:57:39 +0200 from: Fortunat Joos subject: Re: Response to Holland - FYI to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, Thank you for your time and effort to deal with this request - well done. All the best, Fortunat Keith Briffa schrieb: > Dear Colleagues and fellow IPCC Chapter 6 authors > For you information, I am copying my response to a letter I received > from someone who is actively > engaged on behalf of the Climate Change Sceptic lobby, here and > abroad. As Tim and I informed you earlier, > this person has also applied under the UK Freedom of Information Act > (FOIA), for access to all of our email > correspondence in relation to our roles as IPCC authors. This FOIA > request is being considered by the relevant authorities at our > university, but on advice from them and after discussion with my > colleagues here, I have decided to send the attached brief personal > response to the initial letter (also attached for reference). In this > I take the opportunity to correct one widely > promulgated erroneous notion that certain data were "censored" in the > production of Figure 6.10b. > I note and agree with Susan's opinion that the appropriate source of > information for research into the > development of the final chapter text is the web archive of FOD and > SOD comments and responses. By providing this reply, however, it is > hoped that it will be considered that I did not dismiss Holland's > questions out of hand. My responses are intended to offer some > personal comments while protecting the confidentiality of author > interactions. I hope that none of you will consider that this letter > in any way compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process and it > clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be entered into > on the matter. I realise some of you may not agree with entering into > any discussion at all and all I can say is that this has until now > been my own opinion and the decision to send this response was not > taken lightly. > > Also , thanks to each of you for your responses to the letter Tim and > I sent regarding the FOIA request. Please be assured that Tim and I > are determined to respect your wishes fully. > > best wishes > Keith > > -- > Professor Keith Briffa, > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593909 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 3780. 2008-05-17 12:06:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 17 May 2008 12:06:18 +0100 (BST) from: C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk subject: [Fwd: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [Fwd: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01] From: f034@uea.ac.uk Date: Sat, May 17, 2008 12:04 pm To: p.jones@uea.ac.u t.osborn@uea.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can we meet on Monday to discuss this and hear from Phil what was decided at the London meeting? I'll be in late Monday (waiting for someone to look at my leaking roof) - so maybe early afternoon. I'm going down to London early evening and will be at Chelsea on tuesday. Good to see Saffron is getting some publicity! Clare ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01 From: "Darch, Geoff J" Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 9:06 am To: "Jim Hall" "C G Kilsby" "Mark New" ana.lopez@ouce.ox.ac.uk "Anthony Footitt" "Suraje Dessai" "Phil Jones" "Clare Goodess" t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Cc: "McSweeney, Robert" "Arkell, Brian" "Sene, Kevin" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear all, Please find attached the final tender pack for the Environment Agency bid. The tasks have been re-jigged, with the main change being a broadening of flood risk management to flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM). This means a wider audience to include all operating authorities, and the best practice guidance required (new Task 11) is now substantial element, to include evaluation of FCERM climate change adaptation, case studies and provision of evidence to help upgrade the FCDPAG3 Supplementary Note. We have just one week to finish this tender, as it must be posted on Friday 23rd. We are putting together the bid document, which we'll circulate on Monday 19th, but in the meantime, and by the end of Tuesday 20th, I need everyone to send information (as indicated in brackets) to support the following structure: + Understanding of the tender + Methodology and programme (methodology for tasks / sub-tasks - see below - and timing) + Project team, including individual and corporate experience (who you are putting forward, pen portraits, corporate case studies) + Financial and commercial (day rates and number of days; please also highlight potential issues with the T&Cs e.g. IPR) + Health & Safety, Quality and Environmental Management + Appendices (full CVs, limited to 6 pages) Please send to me and Rob McSweeney. The information I have already e.g. on day rates, core pen portraits etc will go straight into the version we're working on, so no need to re-send. In terms of tasks (new nos.), the following organisation is suggested based on what has been noted to date: Task 1 (Inception meeting and reporting) Atkins, supported by lead representatives of partners Task 2 (Project board meetings) Atkins, supported by lead representatives of partners Task 3 (Analysis of user needs) Atkins with Tyn@UEA and OUCE, plus Futerra depending on style Task 4 (Phase 2 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task 5 (Interpret messages from UKCIP08 projections) CRU, OUCE and Newcastle, with Atkins advice on sectors Task 6 (Development of business specific projections) Newcastle and CRU, with Atkins advice on policy and ops Task 7 (Putting UKCIP08 in context) CRU, Newcastle and OUCE Task 8 (User guidance) Atkins, Tyn@UEA, Futerra Task 9 (Pilot studies) Atkins, Newcastle, OUCE, Tyn@UEA Task 10 (Phase 3 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task 11 (Best Practice Guidance for FCERM) Newcastle and Atkins, with CRU Task 12 (Awareness raising events) Atkins, key experts, Futerra (perhaps as an option as EA are quite specific here) Task 13 (Training events) Atkins and Futerra Note that Futerra is a communications consultancy, specialising in sustainability, who will input on workshops and on the guidance documents. I'll be in touch again early next week. Best wishes, Geoff Geoff Darch Senior Consultant Water and Environment ATKINS Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, PE2 6YS, UK Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969 Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999 Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590 E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com Web: www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change This email and any attached files are confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this communication shall be legally binding. The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. Registered in England No. 1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in the United Kingdom can be found at http://www.atkinsglobal.com/terms_and_conditions/index.aspx Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 418. 2008-05-18 11:13:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 18 May 2008 11:13:23 +0100 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, will keep this as short as possible as you could be inundated with all sorts of replies. Rosanne has already sent you divergence related info. I think the only thing I would add is that the 'divergence' issue should really only be addressed and examined for those TR proxy series which have a strong relationship with climate. I was recently at the TRACE meeting in Poland and everybody was seeing divergence, but when the TR records only correlate at ~0.4 with some climatic variable, it all comes a bit academic and meaningless. Many of the RW chronologies in Alaska which `show' divergence are really only weak temperature proxies at best even in the period prior to divergence. This has become a bit of a bandwagon which was never my intention. So - areas where I think dendroclimatologists should focus: 1. We need to specifically move on from the concept that "15 trees are enough". If at all possible we should try and encourage people to sample as much as possible and not be afraid to try and go for more than 50 series/trees per year. Of course this will not always be possible/easy when extending living material with historical/sub-fossil material, but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to only relatively few trees in the living period. High replication will help us overcome signal to noise issues as well as limitations in detrending etc. 2. Some sort of strategic update of the large scale networks (Schweingruber's being the best example) is needed. Many of the important chronologies around the Northern Hemisphere need to be brought up to present. This will result in addressing potential calibration issues in the recent period, but also ensuring that resulting reconstructions will also extend to present. Also - where possible - for those key sites (e.g. Tornetrask etc) which are always used in NH recons for example, some sort of validation is needed of their long term trends. Hakan Grudd's recent update of Tornetrask, I think, is no more believable than the original version (I am not saying this in a negative way - it just needs some validation). It would be much better to develop another similarly long TR record from a neighbouring climatologically similar region to check long term trends. The Alpine example is a good example of this where multiple independent TR series have now been developed which all basically show the same story. 3. A better sampling of different age classes within a stand. At the very least, I think we should sample both young and old trees at a site. This will facilitate the use of detrending methods such as RCS as well as allowing for analyses to test for age dependent relationships. 4. In the context of large scale millennial length reconstructions, we need to target regions where no long 1000+ year TR record exists (as well as updating existing ones!). We may not entirely agree on this, but I feel that much more good quality data are needed for better estimates of NH temperatures - especially during the MWP. Also, if we really want better spatial information we must increase the density of the current NH network. For example - there are no 1000+ year long records between the Yukon and Labrador - surely we, as a community, can fill this gap? 5. Although RW data is a nice cheap proxy, more often than not, the climate signal is not as strong as we would like. We need to encourage labs to also measured density (or possibly the related blue reflectance measure) where possible. For example - Greg Wiles is sitting on a 1500+ year long highly replicated composite for coastal Alaska and no density work has been done on this material. I believe Dave Frank may have started negotiations in this direction though. 6. Isotopes. I am watching results from ISONET and MILLENNIUM closely. My gut feeling is that in those regions and for those species where traditional RW/MXD do very well, stable isotopes do not provide any more useful information. However, there are encouraging results in areas where traditional approaches provide no information, where isotopes may indeed allow some sort of climatic interpretation. For example - temperature data from C and O isotopes measured from Oak samples in Northern Britain etc. 7. We should not assume that the early instrumental record is robust. The recent work in the Alpine region with Reinhard Bohm et al. shows how TR proxy records could at least help identify homogeneity issues in climate records. Of course, we need to have `faith' in the proxies, but with more replication, multiple sites etc, I think this should not be a problem given time. 8. Finally, w.r.t. to NH reconstructions, individual constituent TR chronologies should be assessed for their `climatic relevance' at the local scale ONLY - i.e. they are robust estimates for local/regional climate. It does NOT matter how they correlate with large scale NH temperatures. The Jacoby/D'Arrigo principle of only looking for those series that express some sort of mythical large scale signal is wrong and biased. Gaspe is a good example of this. Do not pass this on to Gordon/Rosanne. :-) Anyway - hope the comments are of some use Regards Rob Keith Briffa wrote: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate Uncertainties PLEASE NOTE - this message has been sent to a representative selection of those working in different tree-ring laboratories - please forward to those of your colleagues who would be interested - THANK YOU Dear Colleagues, I have been tasked with drafting the `White paper' in the general topic of `Reducing Uncertainties', in my case with a focus on tree-ring data. This is meant as the basis for discussion at a wider meeting dealing with various high-resolution proxy data, being held in Trieste funded by PAGES/CLIVAR. Hence I am asking for specific input from any of those among you who wish to contribute specific points or stress, even briefly or as concepts, areas of concern regarding present work or future requirements. The context is general dendroclimatology and the use of tree-ring-derived climate reconstructions specifically for establishing the precedence of instrumental observations in a recent multi-millennial context. The specific issues I have been asked to address include: 1) sources of climate interpretational uncertainty - how can this be quantified and represented? 2) strategies for reducing these uncertainties? 3) database / data archiving needs and ideas? The `white paper' is only intended to be several pages long - so specific ideas, concerns etc. along the lines indicated, would be very welcome. I would then try to condense them and draft the text. I must complete this task in the next 2 weeks - so brief, initial thoughts and points that you consider must be included would be most welcome. At present Ed Cook ,Rosanne D'Arrigo and Dave Frank are included among the participants ( Congratulations to Jan Esper on the recent arrival of a brace of beautiful girls - provided they take after their mother that is) and I would particularly hope for input from them - but I know it is vital to get wider input from others working in this area of dendroclimatology - or who have real concerns with the issue of climate change detection and attribution and the use of tree-ring data for model validation or work aimed at quantifying transient climate sensitivity in the real world. Any thoughts, specific text or important PowerPoint slides would be most welcome. With very best wishes and thanks Keith Briffa 15^th May 2008 -- 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/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3237. 2008-05-19 03:33:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 19 May 2008 03:33:32 -0400 from: k.ziemelis@nature.com subject: Receipt of review for Nature 2008-04-04235 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 5711 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Professor Jones This email is to acknowledge receipt of your review for the manuscript by Mr Stine and co-authors, entitled "Changes in the Phase of the Annual Cycle of Surface Temperature". Thank you for your help in this matter. A copy of your review is attached below for your reference. Yours sincerely Helen Anthony Staff Nature For Dr Karl Ziemelis Your comments: Remarks to the Editor: The GCM aspct of the paper is way out of date. There are many newer models which are not flux corrected. They also need to emphasize some aspects of the work, so need to have explained the rest in a specialist paper. Remarks to the Author: Review of Stine et al. on changes in the annual cycle of surface temperatures There are a lot of interesting and thought-provoking ideas in this paper, but there seems far too much detail for this to be considered as a Nature paper. After an initial read through, my first thoughts were that this would seem much more appropriate in an extensive paper in say J. Climate or JGR. There are many useful aspects of basic climatology that could be elaborated upon given slightly more space. After finishing this review and more consideration, I am still of the view that for this to be a useful contribution it needs more space for the issues to be addressed. With all the detail in one paper, it would then be possible to write a shorter paper (for Nature) where the more interesting parts could be discussed. So my recommendation is to reject the paper in this form. I noted a number of thoughts during the review: 1. I can't see the relevance of the first sentence as two completely different timescales are under consideration. The annual cycle is large locally, but less so for global average. The glacial-interglacial cycle is for the global average: it too would be much larger locally. 2. A number of papers look at seasonal temperature changes. The annual is just a convenient way of distilling everything down to one time series plot. The global datasets are gridded versions of the available data, so seasonal and spatial patterns can be shown and generally are (see the latest IPCC Report, in Trenberth et al., 2007). 3. Thomson (1995) found a number of interesting features of global temperature and also the CET series. One was a problem with the CET data before the calendar change in the UK in 1752. The CET data could be useful to look at the natural variability of phase changes in a long record, albeit for one location on the land. There are other long-term records for a few sites in Europe and North America that go back to the late-18th and early-19th centuries respectively. A long daily series for Kansas will be published soon - see the University of Arkansas web site (tree-ring group). 4. The climate model used by Wallace and Osborn (2002) was HadCM2, which did incorporate flux adjustments. This model is fairly old now. A useful addition to the paper would be to look at the full range of the AR4 models, focussing on the many that now do not need flux adjustments. All the models used in Ch 10 of AR4 did not use flux adjustments, so it is important to see if these much newer models do things differently. My guess would be that they would, but that there would be quite a difference between them. Detailed study of their changes in phase and amplitude might prove a useful measure of reliability assessment. There is also another set of climate model runs that could be looked at as well - these are those given the time history of observed SST changes over the 20th century. A comparison of these - with and without additional external forcing (from the sun, volcanoes, greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols) would likely elucidate some useful information. Do the chan ges in the phase of the annual cycle come from the changes in SST, or do they require the changes in external forcing? 5. The authors point out the obvious aspects of earlier springs with a warming of the climate, and this needs to be clarified with the definition based on the 1/yr harmonic used here. Could be easily illustrated with the CET series. 6. The HadCRUT3 dataset is a combination of land temperature anomalies with SST anomalies over the ocean. The absolute climatology is of air temperatures over the land and marine air temperatures over the ocean. There is no need to use a land mask, as the two components can be used separately (CRUTEM3 and HadSST2). So there is no need for a different ocean mask from ref 27 to be used. There may also be an issue with these gridded data due to fewer constituent station series over land in earlier decades. There has been an attempt to allow for this over land with the CRUTEM3v version. 7. It is nice to see the effective spatial degrees of freedom being considered. It would be useful in a longer paper to compare the results from ref 13 with those detailed in Jones et al. (1997). 3132. 2008-05-19 15:45:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Kennedy , Mike Wallace date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:45:48 +0100 from: David Thompson subject: Re: Press release plus Nature to: Phil Jones Phil et al... I have arranged to chat with Nature tomorrow as well. I agree with Phil's comments on the press release. Also: didn't Dick Reynolds also identify the role of the buoys? (the press release makes it sound only the Hadley Centre has identified this bias) I suggest we get the release finalized by Thursday. At that time I will send what we have to the CSU press office (and I'm guessing Mike will do the same with the UW press office). I've agreed to chat with any Nature reporters on the story. But otherwise I'm going to be pretty cautious about what reporters I chat with... I'll let all of you know if there are any other reasonable interview requests from folks we trust (eg Andy Revkin, etc). -Dave On May 19, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Phil Jones wrote: John, The first 4 paragraphs are fine. The last paragraph seems to have crept back from an earlier version! I guess my problem with it is the first sentence. The last sentence of para 5 has already been said at the end of para 4. The second and third sentences of para 5 are OK if they have a slightly different first sentence. Maybe just say 'We are working to improve the SST data entering the global temperature dataset.' and then 'We have identified two principal biases in the SST record...' Whilst writing this email I've been called by Nature about the news item they are going to run on this. This has to be ready this Thursday (22cnd). The person doing this is in Germany and he seems to think it is my paper! I've put him right on this and he will be contacting you - I'll send him details. He's going to send me our final pdf. He has a draft of the news and views item, but this is very much a draft. This Thursday - his draft news item, our pdf and the N&V item all go out emabrgoed to the press. Cheers Phil At 13:42 16/05/2008, John Kennedy wrote: All, I've attached the latest version of the press release. I've stripped off the additional information and removed some of the text about keying in new data. The press office and other interested parties haven't seen it yet, which is the next stage. John On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 10:50 +0100, David Thompson wrote: > > > All, > > > I've made a few tweaks to Mike's version. Text is below. > > > I was also uncomfortable with the Hadley Centre propaganda. I think it > would have been a lightning rod for the critics. > > > -Dave > > > Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary > fluctuations in global temperature due to El Niño and transient > weather patterns, researchers at Colorado State University, the > University of Washington, the UK Met Office and the University of East > Anglia have highlighted a number of sudden drops in global > temperature. > > > Most of these drops coincide with the eruptions of large tropical > volcanoes and are evident in temperatures measured over both the > worldâs land and ocean areas. But the largest drop, occurring towards > the end of 1945, is unrelated to any known volcanic eruption and is > not apparent over land. It appears to arise from an artificial and > temporary cooling caused by an abrupt change in the mix of US and UK > ships reporting temperatures at the end of the Second World War. > > > The majority of sea temperature measurements available in > international data bases between 1941 and 1945 are from US ships. The > crews of US ships measured the temperature of the water before it was > used to cool the ships engine. Because of warmth coming from the ship, > the water was often a little warmer than the true sea temperature. At > the end of 1945 the number of US observations in the data base dropped > rapidly while the number of UK observations increased. UK ships > measured the temperature of water samples collected using special > buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled onto the > deck often caused these measurements to be cooler than the actual sea > temperature. The sudden drop in global-mean temperatures at the end of > World War 2 is due to the sudden but uncorrected change from US engine > room measurements - which are biased warm - to UK measurements - which > are biased cool. > > > Although the drop in 1945 is large in climate-change terms abouut > 0.3°C its effect is likely to be largest during the period > immediately after the Second World War and very small by the 1960s, > when better-insulated buckets came into use and a there was a more > varied mix of measurements from different national merchant shipping > fleets. Correcting the drop will change the character of middle > century temperature variablity during the period following World War > 2, but it is expected to have little effect on 20th century warming > trends, which are corroborated by independent records of air > temperatures taken over both land and sea. > > > > Climate researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre are working to > reduce the biases in the temperature datasets. In the past two years, > many hundreds of thousands of observations have been keyed in from > hand-written log books that were kept aboard ships in the UK navy, > particularly for the periods of sparse marine coverage, such as the > two World War periods. Fixing the drop is unlikely to radically alter > our understanding of climate change, but having a more accurate record > of the real temperature change during the mid-20th century could > provide insight into the more subtle mechanisms that caused the early > rise in temperatures to the 1920s and the subsequent flattening of the > temperature curve that lasted into the early 1970s. > > > > Extra information: > > > Marine temperatures are much more prone to systematic biases arising > from changes in the way the measurements are taken and the platforms > used than are land air temperatures. For example, since the 1970s, > sea surface temperatures have been estimated from satellites, but > these need considerable adjustment (sometimes in excess of 2 deg C) to > be comparable with ship and buoy measurements. The satellite sees only > the top millimetre of the ocean surface, while traditional ship-based > sampling sees the top few metres. A change is gradually talking place > across the worldâs oceans in the way sea surface temperature > measurements are made during the last ten years: the number of ship- > based measurements has reduced slightly, but there is a dramatic > increase in the number of measurements coming from automatic > measurements taken on fixed and drifting buoys. Work is underway to > determine the size of the difference between the ships and buoys, as > the bias between the two could be of the same order as that in the > 1940s. -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [1]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [2]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [3]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 [4]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 4684. 2008-05-21 07:40:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , David Frank , Jan Esper , "Rosanne D'Arrgio" date: Wed, 21 May 2008 07:40:20 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, Some brief, initial thoughts and points: I am working on implementing a full bootstrap procedure for my principal components regression program PCREG. Hopefully, it will be sufficiently completed for some meaningful results to be shown at the workshop. Certain aspects of it are a bit complicated to implement, so I am hedging my bets a bit here. What I am working towards are much more realistic expressions of tree-ring reconstruction uncertainty than that normally presented based only on calibration period RSQ and MSE and on the usual suite of verification period statistics. Neither honestly tells us ANYTHING about the true uncertainty in the reconstructions prior to the calibration/verification periods. So the goal is to have uncertainties on the reconstructions back in time based on bootstrapped pseudo-samples taken from the actual data being used for reconstruction and weighted by pseudo-sample estimates of the betas over the calibration period. While this would only express the internal uncertainty of the estimates conditioned on the tree-ring series being used (NOTHING about the accuracy of the climate estimates back in time), it would still add to our evaluation of reconstruction uncertainty I believe. This procedure would also ignore the uncertainties in the tree-ring chronologies themselves, which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to fully account for in bootstrap model I am working on now. Some stats people I have talked to suggest that all (i.e. tree-ring chronology development AND climate reconstruction!) could be incorporated together in a hierarchical Bayes framework, but I think they are smoking the wrong stuff and talking largely out of ignorance of what we actually do in dendroclimatology and tree-ring chronology development. How does this sound for a brief, initial contribution? 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, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate Uncertainties PLEASE NOTE - this message has been sent to a representative selection of those working in different tree-ring laboratories - please forward to those of your colleagues who would be interested - THANK YOU Dear Colleagues, I have been tasked with drafting the White paper in the general topic of Reducing Uncertainties, in my case with a focus on tree-ring data. This is meant as the basis for discussion at a wider meeting dealing with various high-resolution proxy data, being held in Trieste funded by PAGES/CLIVAR. Hence I am asking for specific input from any of those among you who wish to contribute specific points or stress, even briefly or as concepts, areas of concern regarding present work or future requirements. The context is general dendroclimatology and the use of tree-ring-derived climate reconstructions specifically for establishing the precedence of instrumental observations in a recent multi-millennial context. The specific issues I have been asked to address include: 1) sources of climate interpretational uncertainty how can this be quantified and represented? 2) strategies for reducing these uncertainties? 3) database / data archiving needs and ideas? The white paper is only intended to be several pages long so specific ideas, concerns etc. along the lines indicated, would be very welcome. I would then try to condense them and draft the text. I must complete this task in the next 2 weeks so brief, initial thoughts and points that you consider must be included would be most welcome. At present Ed Cook ,Rosanne D'Arrigo and Dave Frank are included among the participants ( Congratulations to Jan Esper on the recent arrival of a brace of beautiful girls - provided they take after their mother that is) and I would particularly hope for input from them but I know it is vital to get wider input from others working in this area of dendroclimatology or who have real concerns with the issue of climate change detection and attribution and the use of tree-ring data for model validation or work aimed at quantifying transient climate sensitivity in the real world. Any thoughts, specific text or important PowerPoint slides would be most welcome. With very best wishes and thanks Keith Briffa 15^th May 2008 -- 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/ 2210. 2008-05-21 10:51:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 21 10:51:13 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Matthews, HB of Environmental Change to: "Boyd, Sarah-Jayne" Sarah-Jayne, I'd rather not. Mostly because I'm quite busy with visitors here for the next two weeks. Phil At 10:27 21/05/2008, you wrote: Thank you for your discretion. We would be happy to accept your thoughts on the proposal, but I understand if you are not comfortable with that. Do let me know. We will try Ray Bradley, and thank you for the suggestion. Best, Sarah-Jayne Sarah-Jayne Boyd | Assistant Editor SAGE Publications One Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London | EC1Y 1SP tel: +44 207 324 8500 fax: +44 207 324 8600 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 21 May 2008 08:33 To: Boyd, Sarah-Jayne Subject: Re: Matthews, HB of Environmental Change Sarah-Jayne, I don't think it appropriate for me to review this proposal as Keith Briffa is in the room next to me. I would suggest you use someone else. Ray Bradley from the University of Massachusetts is a possibility. Ray is "raymond s. bradley" Cheers Phil At 17:11 20/05/2008, you wrote: Hello there, I f I have not done so already, please allow me to introduce myself as the Geography and Urban Studies Assistant Editor working with Robert Rojek. I was writing to ask whether you might be interested in reviewing the attached proposal for THE HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE edited by John A. Matthews, Patrick J. Bartlei, Keith R. Briffa, Alastair G. Dawson, Anne De Vernal, Tim Denham, Sherilyn C. Fritz and Frank Oldfield. It is intended that this book forms a comprehensive and state-of-the art overview of this field of research broadly conceived, and we hope to bring together within the proposed chapters some of the foremost scholars in the field. SAGE Handbooks are substantial publications (around 500 pages) and are intended for individual as well as library purchase by academics, practitioners and graduate researchers in the field. Our previous publishing experience suggests that they are bought by researchers who want a discipline-defining reference tool. We would very much welcome and value your comments on the enclosed proposal. It would be helpful if you could consider the following questions in your review: · Would you agree that there is a market for this Handbook? And, if so, do you feel that the proposed level is appropriate, and that the market would be genuinely international? · Does the Handbook address your own research interests and areas of teaching? · Are you aware of any competing works in preparation or recently published? What would be the strengths and weaknesses of this Handbook in relation to its competition? · Is the outline as comprehensive as you would expect in terms of overall coverage, the main themes and the topics included? Are there are any major omissions (please specify and explain)? · What are your impressions of the structure of the outline? · On the basis of this draft outline please provide comments on the proposed chapters and authors (including any other suggestions of authors for specific chapters). At this stage I would like to point out that names are prospective and formalized approaches have not been made. · Do you think that the proposed editors are well placed to edit this Handbook? Please add any comments that might further assist them. Of course any general points, however brief, that you would like to make would also be very helpful. We would also appreciate it if you would indicate whether you are happy to have your comments released in your name or whether you would prefer we keep your feedback anonymous. I do hope that you will have time to comment, since we do rely on this type of feedback from the academic community to ensure that a substantial new project of this nature will be of enduring quality and value. By way of an honorarium we are very happy to offer either £50 or £75 worth of SAGE books. Please simply indicate your selection when returning your comments. I would be most grateful if you could let me know in the next few days whether you will be able to undertake the review and, if you are able to undertake the review, whether we could expect your comments by 1^st June 2008. If you would like to review the proposal, but feel you may need more time, please do email me to discuss. I look forward to hearing from you. With best Wishes, Sarah-Jayne Sarah-Jayne Boyd | Editorial Assistant Sage Publications 1 Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London, EC1Y 1SP Tel: +44 (0)207 324 8500 Fax: +44 (0)207 324 8600 Sarah-Jayne Boyd | Assistant Editor SAGE Publications One Oliver's Yard 55 City Road London | EC1Y 1SP tel: +44 207 324 8500 fax: +44 207 324 8600 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4927. 2008-05-21 15:12:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 21 May 2008 15:12:35 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Thompson et al paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! 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: [1]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2289. 2008-05-21 17:34:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 21 May 2008 17:34:21 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Keith, I will give a more complete answer tomorrow but I do have concerns classifying the request as 'vexatious' as defined by the Act and the ICO at this stage (I'll set this out tomorrow more fully). As for compliance with less demanding requests, we are under an obligation to treat each request on it's merits, and if it falls within the appropriate limit, is not vexatious, and there is no exemption applicable, we are not in a legal position to refuse to comply with the request. More tomorrow. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Hi Dave >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my letter over >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is unreasonable - >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter 6 authors >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >cheers >Keirth > >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was going to make >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >along the lines >>of .... >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >letter of 31 >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >under this >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the requester is not >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >question... Your >>opinions? >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: >> > >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >comments and on >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you , I intend >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to Holland tomorrow >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >I did not >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not believe that this >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process in any >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >thanks again >> >Keith >> > >> >-- >> >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/ > > 2004. 2008-05-22 08:44:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 22 08:44:37 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: mikequestion to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi, Mike probably reacts this way to all reviewers! par for the course means this is what you expect If you ever take up the Scottish game - golf, a par is what you expect to get on each hole. So you get the phrase of some number under par (the average or expected). Maybe you try one of the public golf courses in your area one day! Cheers Phil At 20:39 21/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, I;ll have a sleep over it, probably most of it is ok, and I am just suffering from bruised ego which is always a long-term benefit (at least catholics tend to be encouraged to believe that :) I think its not that bad, it frustrates since the review seems a bit of a waste of energy and I was just wondering if MIke just reacts like this to reviews, or if possibly mine really wasnt all that useful. Sorry for dumping on you!! (what does par for the course mean?) Gabi Quoting Phil Jones : Gabi, I think this is par for the course. See what Tom thinks. Tom can probably write you a good response letter to the editor saying that the author hasn't taken any of my comments into account. It seems that the point of a review .... is pointless. Cheers Phil At 14:34 21/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, just looking at Mikes responses to my review of the PNAS paper - is it normal for Mike to just pretty much tell the reviewer reviewer is clueless, or possibly I really am clueless? :) cheers, next IDAG meeting timing coming tomorrow or friday 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 [1]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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3610. 2008-05-22 09:28:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Thu May 22 09:28:52 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Gavin, OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle of next week. Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last paragraph which we're still working on. There will also be a News and Views item from Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John. It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper. I hope to get these later two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when. Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the probable underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott Woodruff more about this. A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket corrections. My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for the SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books. [1]http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/ and click on SST to see some comparisons. The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also been digitized. There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of those not already done. If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S. Atlantic/indian oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in 1939/40. Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle and then back into the fray. ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books. Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this! If you want me to look through anything then email me. I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in a few weeks if you hear nothing. Cheers Phil PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show - the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening. Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the environment minister. She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas) seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract CO2 from the atmosphere! He'd also not heard of the UHI! Still lots of education needed. PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is. [2]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! 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: [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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 789. 2008-05-22 09:45:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Juckes, MN \(Martin\)" , "Yvan Biot" , "Tim Sumner" , "George McLaughlin" , , , "William Westermeyer" , , , , "Rick Crouthamel" date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:45:35 +0100 from: "Mike McCarthy" subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation to: "Rob Allan" Thanks. DFID bars access to some of these sites. The whole point of ClimDev is to manage data, research and funding centrally and to oversee and coordinate as appropriate, work on CC adaptation and risk management through AU member state development programmes. ACPC and ClimDev will establish links to most if not all relevant institutions - particularly in Africa. In keeping the money in a central location under the control of ACPC and ClimDev, we should ensure that partners are guided towards ACPC and that they are aware of and engaged with, what is being done. You will need to await the next stages of ClimDev development and engage with them. I am the wrong person to deal with your e-mails as my priorities relate to setting up ClimDev within the UNECA, AUC and AfDB. Regards. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Rob Allan [mailto:rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: 22 May 2008 11:29 To: Mike McCarthy Cc: Juckes, MN (Martin); Yvan Biot; Tim Sumner; George McLaughlin; efernandes@worldbank.org; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; William Westermeyer; manola.brunet@urv.cat; mavalente@fc.ul.pt; rmtrigo@fc.ul.pt; Rick Crouthamel Subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation Mike, Thanks for that perspective, and I appreciate the situation and how you are looking to develop things with African needs and CLIMDEV in mind. Taking a step back, there is a need (maybe it's already planned?) for CLIMDEV to be fully aware of, and work with, all of the existing projects and data rescue efforts that are digitising old African colonial through to contemporary records. Keeping in mind, as Martin notes, that these projects, including ACRE, have to work extremely hard to set up and keep such digitisation activities going. Most are extremely fragile in terms of both personnel and funds. Nevertheless, they are doing what digitisation they can - all be it at a pace and scope that is generally sub-optimal. In addition, it must be remembered that though international bodies such as WMO, GCOS, GEO and the like do provide 'umbrellas' that support a few of the digitisation efforts, they generally have no significant funds to pay for the costs of imaging and digitisation. Thus, one thing that really needs to be coordinated in conjunction with CLIMDEV and all the African Meteorological Services etc is the scope of the various existing digitisation efforts for Africa - what these efforts have done, are doing, and plan doing. Otherwise, there is the risk of duplication of efforts and just plain lack of knowledge about what actually exists and is happening etc. It was most surprising at the first MEDARE (MEditerranean climate DAta REscue) meeting in Spain late last year, where representatives of most National Meteorological Services around the Mediterranean attended, to see their general shock at what existed in the way of scanned old colonial records for their countries on just the NOAA Central Library WWW site!! I suspect that it would be even more shocking to the rest of the African countries. The following is a listing of the main data rescue, imaging, digitising and archiving projects that I'm aware of which have a focus on some part or parts of Africa. ACRE - I've already sent you a detailed breakdown of what we're doing. MEDARE - MEditerranean climate DAta REscue (http://www.omm.urv.cat/MEDARE-workshop-outcomes/index-medare- initiative.html#atitol) brings together scientists from universities, research centres and other international climate-related institutions and projects together with experts and climatologists from the National Meteorological and Hydrological Services in the Greater Mediterranean Region (GMR) [INCLUDING NORTH AFRICA]. The long-term goal of the project is to develop a comprehensive high quality instrumental climate dataset for the GMR with a focus on the Essential Climate Variables (ECV) of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS). Such a dataset will support and improve our ability to monitor, detect and predict climate variability and change at regional and national levels, thereby allowing countries of the region to develop robust strategies for managing climate related risks and adapting to climate change. SIGN - Signatures of environmental change in the geophysical institutes project; aims to recover the 19th and 20th century data collected by their Geophysical Institutes and National Meteorological Service, including data from their former African [eg. SAO TOME, ANGOLA, MOZAMBIQUE] and Asian colonies. IEDRO - International Environmental Data Rescue Organization http://www.iedro.com/ - have ongoing data rescue projects in a number of countries in Africa and South America, and have worked closely with US agencies such as Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP). They are working closely with African meterological services to recover and digitise upper air observations from KENYA, MALAWI, MOZAMBIQUE, NIGER, SENEGAL and ZAMBIA. CIRCE - Climate change and Impact Research: the Mediterranean Environment, an ongoing EU FP-6 project with North African partners from TUNISIA, ALGERIA and EGYPT is undetaking some historical daily to monthly temperature and precipation digitisation. I think, at the very least, there is a need for closer links and greater rapour between CLIMDEV, the African meteorological community and the specific international projects involved with the digitisation of meteorological data from Africa. Cheers, Rob. -- Dr Rob Allan, ACRE Project Manager, Climate Monitoring and Attribution Group, Met Office Hadley Centre. E-mail: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk ACRE WWW Page: http://brohan.org/hadobs/acre/acre.html Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 06:43 +0100, Mike McCarthy wrote: > I have passed the earlier E-mails to UNECA and will forward this one > too. UNECA on behalf on the AUC, will be responsible and accountable > for ClimDev when it is up and running. Any funding donors may provide > should be via the Africa Climate Policy Centre (ACPC). This alone > would not rule out DFID support, but I am trying to keep everything > together and under African control. If, when ACPC gets going, they > say they need what you are offering - amongst all of the other > priorities they may have - then we could (no commitment from DFID) > either pass the money to ACPC so that they can engage with you, or > provide the funding direct but with ACPC oversight. The most likely > scenario if we were to support this, would be for us to pass the money > to ACPC and let them deal directly with you. > > But at this stage, when climate change is causing massive problems in > Africa and we are trying to raise sufficient funding to get ClimDev > off the ground, digitisation seems to be of a lower priority than > other issues. > > Mike > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > From: Juckes, MN (Martin) [mailto:M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 21 May 2008 19:00 > To: Mike McCarthy; Yvan Biot; Tim Sumner > Cc: Rob Allan; George McLaughlin > Subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > > > Hello Mike, > > > > I hope I can answer some of your questions. My interest in digitising > data was prompted by meeting people involved in climate adaption > planning who did not know what the natural range of climate > variability in their region was. This was at a meeting organised by > the IPCC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and > Climate Analysis. Informed decisions about climate change cannot be > made if the local climate is not known. In this sense, the past > climate record is more like part of the navigation system than the > deck chairs (I hope we shouldn't take your metaphor too literally and > that we all accept that there is still a clear case for supporting > adaptive planning rather than dropping everything in favour of > emergency measures). > > > > The current observing system in Africa does feed into the global, > digital system. There are clearly problems and gaps there too, but > that would be covered by operational meteorology forecasting budgets. > > > > The focus here on colonial datasets is because this is data which has > been collected and archived in the UK, and for which the UK is > currently responsible. > > > > Rob Allan at the UK Met Office is involved in a global effort to > digitise as much historical as possible (see > http://brohan.org/hadobs/acre/acre.html). He does not, however, at > present have any funding to deal with the large collection of records > that this project would deal with. > > > > We have not attempted to cost the project as yet because I first > wanted to find out what, if any, funding might be available and how we > should design the project and its outcomes to best match the > priorities of any funding source, > > > > Cheers, > > Martin > > > > From: Mike McCarthy [mailto:M-McCarthy@dfid.gov.uk] > Sent: 21 May 2008 14:44 > To: Yvan Biot; Tim Sumner > Cc: Juckes, MN (Martin); Rob Allan; George McLaughlin > Subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > > > > Thanks Yvan, I will inform the potential ACPC people in UNECA. I must > say though that digitising data from the colonial times seems a bit > like arranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. Apart from this > personal and uninformed observation about which element of data work > should have a higher priority over another, and also not wishing to > offend anyone by such a knee-jerk reaction, it would surely need to > fit within a digitisation process where eventually all data would be > digitised. It seems to me that at this stage in Africa, we have some > way to go before this would be a burning issue. Wouldn't it be of > more interest for the Met Office to do this? Also, there is no > mention of how much this would cost or what added advantages would > arise. My uninformed instinct would also be to ask whether more > recent records in Africa are in a digitised form and being well used. > > > > I note that Mr Juckes is from a university and Mt Allan from the Met > Office. I am sure ACPC would welcome collaboration in due course as > they will need to engage with centres of excellence in order to > enhance their capacity and build international credibility. > > > > Mike > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Yvan Biot > Sent: 21 May 2008 16:05 > To: Mike McCarthy; Tim Sumner > Cc: M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk; Rob Allan; George McLaughlin > Subject: FW: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > Mike, Tim, > > > > please see below regarding an initiative in climate-data digitisation. > This is exactly the kind of effort that we would like CLIMDEV to > engage in, and I therefore advised Rob and Martin to also get in touch > with you about this. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Yvan > > > > > Dr Ir Yvan Biot > > > > Senior Policy Advisor - Climate Change > > Policy and Research Division > > DFID > > > > 1 Palace Street > > London SW1E 5HE > > > > tel: + 44 20 7023 1138 / + 44 20 8776 6807 (fridays) > > fax: + 44 20 7023 0719 > > Mob: 07824 864 523 > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Juckes, MN (Martin) [mailto:M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 16 May 2008 16:38 > To: Anna Ballance; George McLaughlin; John Barrett > Cc: Yvan Biot > Subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > Dear Anna, George and John, > > > > Yvan (see below) suggested that I contact you about possible funding > for climate data digitisation. I am interested in this through my work > with the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (DDC: www.ipcc-data.org). The > idea would be to digitise data from colonial weather stations > currently held at the UK Met Office, in collaboration with Rob Allan's > group at the Met Office. Some preliminary work will be needed to > assess the scope of the available records. The resulting digitised > data would be made available through the Met Office archive and also > through the DDC. > > > > Such data will be important to policy makers and researchers in > countries whose own climate data records are too short to adequately > describe their own climate. > > > > I'd be grateful if you could tell me what funding opportunities there > might be, > > > > Sincerely, > > Martin Juckes > > > > From: Yvan Biot [mailto:Y-Biot@dfid.gov.uk] > Sent: 14 April 2008 09:37 > To: Juckes, MN (Martin) > Cc: Anna Ballance; George McLaughlin; John Barrett > Subject: RE: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > > > > Martin, thanks you for your email. This does indeed sound interesting. > There are a couple of DFID groups that could be interested by what you > talk about: (i) Anna Balance and George McLaughlin, who lead on our > research programme, of which the next 'instalment' will be launched > fairly soon (ii) John Barett who leads on work on a climate centre. > Suggest you contact Anna, George and John some time soon-ish to find > out how what you have on offer might fit in their plans. Please do > keep me in the loop. Kind regards, Yvan > > > > > Dr Ir Yvan Biot > > > > Senior Policy Advisor - Climate Change > > Policy and Research Division > > DFID > > > > 1 Palace Street > > London SW1E 5HE > > > > tel: + 44 20 7023 1138 / + 44 20 8776 6807 (fridays) > > fax: + 44 20 7023 0719 > > Mob: 07824 864 523 > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > From: Juckes, MN (Martin) [mailto:M.N.Juckes@rl.ac.uk] > Sent: 11 April 2008 16:19 > To: Yvan Biot > Subject: DFID funding for climate data digitisation > > Dear Yvan, > > > > I attended the Royal Meteorological Society meeting on climate change > at which you spoke, on Feb. 20th. You mentioned the possibility of > funding being available to support work relevant to climate and > development. As manager of the IPCC Data Distribution Centre > (www.ipcc-data.org) I have become very aware of the demand, in > developing countries, for longer observational data records. The > library of the UK Met Office has a substantial volume of such data on > paper, and if we could get funding, myself and colleagues at the Met > Office would like to make this available in digitised form. > > > > We would be most grateful if you could let us know of any opportunity > to bid for such funds, > > > > Sincerely, > > Martin Juckes > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service > is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > > DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the > British government's fight against world poverty. For more information > subscribe to our e-bulletin at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/feedback/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus > service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service > is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > > DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the > British government's fight against world poverty. For more information > subscribe to our e-bulletin at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/feedback/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus > service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service > is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive > anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.star.net.uk > ______________________________________________________________________ > __ > > DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the > British government's fight against world poverty. For more information > subscribe to our e-bulletin at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/feedback/ > ______________________________________________________________________ > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus > service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: > http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail -- Dr Rob Allan, ACRE Project Manager, Climate Monitoring and Attribution Group, Met Office Hadley Centre. E-mail: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk ACRE WWW Page: http://brohan.org/hadobs/acre/acre.html Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ DFID, the Department for International Development: leading the British government's fight against world poverty. For more information subscribe to our e-bulletin at http://www.dfid.gov.uk/feedback/ ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Peapod. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.peapod.co.uk/cleanmail 2867. 2008-05-22 10:29:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C G Kilsby" , "Richard Dawson" , date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:29:15 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: ARCC to: Phil Jones ,"Jim Hall" Hi Jim Many thanks for this. It looks a strong proposal with a good stakeholder team already on board. So yes, as Phil has already said we would like to be involved. I have one general question for Chris and Phil - which is relevant to any work we might do on the weather generator as part of ARCC, and is - are there any issues that we need to consider in relation to UKCIP08, particularly if the intention is to develop a publicly-available revision of what is available in the user interface. Maybe we need to have some informal discussion with UKCIP, BADC and DEFRA on this issue. Task 1, refers to temperature and rainfall, but presumably there is also interest in the other wgen variables such as radiation? In Task 2, will it be possible to look at joint probability climate events? In Task 5 - would it be possible to make use of UEA Tyndall's visualisation facilities? Given Phil's comments below, your second point in Task 1 'Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis of extremes and persistence' could be rephrased to something like 'Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis of extremes and improved simulation of persistence'. I assume the UEA RA time would primarily be for Colin Harpham, and the FEC days would be for Phil. If possible, I would like to have some named involvement in this proposal (though would anticipate a larger role in the critical infrastructure proposal) - so would be good to have a little salary for me as well (e.g., a month at most). Are the Hadley Centre happy to be involved as a stakeholder, i.e., with no funding?! Best wishes, Clare At 16:53 20/05/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > Jim, > I had a brief phone conversation with Chris yesterday. Some of > the thoughts there on > adapting the WG to better simulate hot dry spells would fit in > here. These spells > would clearly be more felt in urban environments as opposed to the > countryside, as > they are already that little bit warmer. Chris and I talked about > getting the drier spells > to warm up more quickly - as happens in reality sometimes. It > isn't just the mean temperatures. > Here's a few examples of the UHIs for London based on max and min > temps for DJF > and JJA. > An interesting aspect of this work which was for the GLA is > that a) there isn't > much of a trend in the differences over time (so the UHI isn't > getting worse) and b) > for max temps the outer London site at LHR has higher temps than LWC. > Getting the spells better in the WG is crucial, as it is the > spells that have the impacts. > > So yes to being involved if the study could incorporate this aspect. > > Cheers > Phil > > PS The joint CRU/Tyndall garden at Chelsea won an award > > http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/latest_news.shtml > > >At 12:41 20/05/2008, Jim Hall wrote: > >>Dear Clare >> >>In Sheffield we discussed potential joint bids to ARCC. Attached is a >>draft outline and spreadsheet work plan for the first of two we >>discussed. This one deals with integrated assessment of climate change >>in cities, building strongly on the Tyndall Cities work, so is submitted >>as a Tyndall Centre bid. The next, which I will get to you by the end of >>this week, will deal with national-scale analysis of critical >>infrastructure and will be based on a smaller consortium. >> >>Please can you/Phil: >>1. let me know whether you are interested in being involved in this >>proposal >>2. let me have any comments on the outline, especially your potential >>role in it. I recognise that the attached is twice as long as permitted >>- I will edit and compress when we are ready to submit. >>3. take a look at the outline resource allocation. Even though this is >>only an outline proposal we need to generate reasonably accurate costs. >> >>If you would like to give me a call to discuss, please ring me this >>week, as I will be on holiday next week. Otherwise, can you send your >>comments to me by Friday 30 May. I will then get going with the Jes >>outline proposal form and will require costing inputs from UEA for that. >> >> >>Best wishes >> >>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 >> >>Journal of Flood Risk Management: >>http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jfrm_enhanced/ >> >> >> >> > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 5198. 2008-05-22 11:21:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:21:18 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, looking forward to reading over the paper as soon as I have a chance, but I'm sure we'll have not reason to be critical. Mostly, we want to make sure that the results aren't taken out of context and misrepresented by contrarians. The fact that recent warming is likely greater than previously estimated seems like the hook to use. Will read over carefully and discuss w/ Gavin, mike p.s. As for Tim Ball, he is so completely discredited (with having lost that lawsuit involving him lying about his academic credentials) that nobody but those truly in denial would even bother reading his tripe. see e.g.: [1]http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272 I do find it an amusing curiosity that he actually has a chapter in Bradley and Jones. Probably best kept a secret! Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Gavin, OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle of next week. Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last paragraph which we're still working on. There will also be a News and Views item from Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John. It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper. I hope to get these later two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when. Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the probable underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott Woodruff more about this. A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket corrections. My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for the SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books. [2] http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/ and click on SST to see some comparisons. The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also been digitized. There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of those not already done. If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S. Atlantic/indian oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in 1939/40. Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle and then back into the fray. ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books. Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this! If you want me to look through anything then email me. I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in a few weeks if you hear nothing. Cheers Phil PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show - the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening. Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the environment minister. She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas) seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract CO2 from the atmosphere! He'd also not heard of the UHI! Still lots of education needed. PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is. [3] http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! 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: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5] 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 [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 5297. 2008-05-22 14:02:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace date: Thu May 22 14:02:01 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Press release plus Nature to: John Kennedy , David Thompson John, I should also pass this onto the UEA press office- someone may get in touch with yours. The UEA one deals with regional papers in this part of the world and MOHC send around the nationals. I'm presuming this will be the same as the annual press releases in December. I'll send it off to UEA later today or tomorrow, if we come up with a few quotes. I've made some suggestions here. Also today is the day that Quirin said Nature would begin to send things out - their own press release, his brief summary, the News and Views item and the paper itself. Cheers Phil At 13:23 22/05/2008, John Kennedy wrote: Dear all, I gave the press release to our press office, together with them we've produced the attached version. They were very keen to have a quote from someone involved in the press release [a scientist]. John On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 15:45 +0100, David Thompson wrote: > Phil et al... > > > I have arranged to chat with Nature tomorrow as well. > > > I agree with Phil's comments on the press release. Also: didn't Dick > Reynolds also identify the role of the buoys? (the press release makes > it sound only the Hadley Centre has identified this bias) > > > I suggest we get the release finalized by Thursday. At that time I > will send what we have to the CSU press office (and I'm guessing Mike > will do the same with the UW press office). > > > I've agreed to chat with any Nature reporters on the story. But > otherwise I'm going to be pretty cautious about what reporters I chat > with... I'll let all of you know if there are any other reasonable > interview requests from folks we trust (eg Andy Revkin, etc). > > > -Dave > > > On May 19, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > > John, > > The first 4 paragraphs are fine. The last paragraph seems to > > have crept > > back from an earlier version! I guess my problem with it is the > > first sentence. > > > > > > The last sentence of para 5 has already been said at the end of > > para 4. > > > > > > The second and third sentences of para 5 are OK if they have a > > slightly different > > first sentence. Maybe just say 'We are working to improve the SST > > data entering > > the global temperature dataset.' and then 'We have identified two > > principal biases > > in the SST record...' > > > > > > Whilst writing this email I've been called by Nature about the > > news item they > > are going to run on this. This has to be ready this Thursday > > (22cnd). The person > > doing this is in Germany and he seems to think it is my paper! > > I've put him > > right on this and he will be contacting you - I'll send him > > details. > > > > > > He's going to send me our final pdf. He has a draft of the news > > and views item, > > but this is very much a draft. > > > > > > This Thursday - his draft news item, our pdf and the N&V item > > all go out > > emabrgoed to the press. > > > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 13:42 16/05/2008, John Kennedy wrote: > > > All, > > > > > > > > > I've attached the latest version of the press release. I've > > > stripped off > > > the additional information and removed some of the text about > > > keying in > > > new data. > > > > > > > > > The press office and other interested parties haven't seen it yet, > > > which > > > is the next stage. > > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 10:50 +0100, David Thompson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I've made a few tweaks to Mike's version. Text is below. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was also uncomfortable with the Hadley Centre propaganda. I > > > think it > > > > would have been a lightning rod for the critics. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > Using a novel technique to remove the effects of temporary > > > > fluctuations in global temperature due to El Niño and transient > > > > weather patterns, researchers at Colorado State University, the > > > > University of Washington, the UK Met Office and the University > > > of East > > > > Anglia have highlighted a number of sudden drops in global > > > > temperature. > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of these drops coincide with the eruptions of large > > > tropical > > > > volcanoes and are evident in temperatures measured over both the > > > > worldĂ¢s land and ocean areas. But the largesgest drop, occurring > > > towards > > > > the end of 1945, is unrelated to any known volcanic eruption and > > > is > > > > not apparent over land. It appears to arise from an artificial > > > and > > > > temporary cooling caused by an abrupt change in the mix of US > > > and UK > > > > ships reporting temperatures at the end of the Second World War. > > > > > > > > > > > > The majority of sea temperature measurements available in > > > > international data bases between 1941 and 1945 are from US > > > ships. The > > > > crews of US ships measured the temperature of the water before > > > it was > > > > used to cool the ships engine. Because of warmth coming from the > > > ship, > > > > the water was often a little warmer than the true sea > > > temperature. At > > > > the end of 1945 the number of US observations in the data base > > > dropped > > > > rapidly while the number of UK observations increased. UK ships > > > > measured the temperature of water samples collected using > > > special > > > > buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled onto > > > the > > > > deck often caused these measurements to be cooler than the > > > actual sea > > > > temperature. The sudden drop in global-mean temperatures at the > > > end of > > > > World War 2 is due to the sudden but uncorrected change from US > > > engine > > > > room measurements - which are biased warm - to UK measurements - > > > which > > > > are biased cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > Although the drop in 1945 is large in climate-change terms  > > > abouut > > > > 0.3Ă°C  its effect is likely to be largest during the period > > > > immediately after the Second World War and very small by the > > > 1960s, > > > > when better-insulated buckets came into use and a there was a > > > more > > > > varied mix of measurements from different national merchant > > > shipping > > > > fleets. Correcting the drop will change the character of middle > > > > century temperature variablity during the period following World > > > War > > > > 2, but it is expected to have little effect on 20th century > > > warming > > > > trends, which are corroborated by independent records of air > > > > temperatures taken over both land and sea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Climate researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre are working > > > to > > > > reduce the biases in the temperature datasets. In the past two > > > years, > > > > many hundreds of thousands of observations have been keyed in > > > from > > > > hand-written log books that were kept aboard ships in the UK > > > navy, > > > > particularly for the periods of sparse marine coverage, such as > > > the > > > > two World War periods. Fixing the drop is unlikely to radically > > > alter > > > > our understanding of climate change, but having a more accurate > > > record > > > > of the real temperature change during the mid-20th century could > > > > provide insight into the more subtle mechanisms that caused the > > > early > > > > rise in temperatures to the 1920s and the subsequent flattening > > > of the > > > > temperature curve that lasted into the early 1970s. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Extra information: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marine temperatures are much more prone to systematic biases > > > arising > > > > from changes in the way the measurements are taken and the > > > platforms > > > > used than are land air temperatures. For example, since the > > > 1970s, > > > > sea surface temperatures have been estimated from satellites, > > > but > > > > these need considerable adjustment (sometimes in excess of 2 deg > > > C) to > > > > be comparable with ship and buoy measurements. The satellite > > > sees only > > > > the top millimetre of the ocean surface, while traditional ship- > > > based > > > > sampling sees the top few metres. A change is gradually talking > > > place > > > > across the worldĂ¢s oceans in the way sea sursurface temperature > > > > measurements are made during the last ten years: the number of > > > ship- > > > > based measurements has reduced slightly, but there is a dramatic > > > > increase in the number of measurements coming from automatic > > > > measurements taken on fixed and drifting buoys. Work is underway > > > to > > > > determine the size of the difference between the ships and > > > buoys, as > > > > the bias between the two could be of the same order as that in > > > the > > > > 1940s. > > > -- > > > John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist > > > Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 > > > E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk > > > [1]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > Global climate data sets are available from [2]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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > David W. J. Thompson > [3]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 > > > > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [5]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2855. 2008-05-22 15:38:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Thu May 22 15:38:32 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Gavin, Here's the embargoed-till time. Cheers Phil From: "Middleton, Jen" <[1]j.middleton@nature.com> Date: May 20, 2008 10:05:47 AM BDT To: <[2]davet@atmos.colostate.edu> Subject: Your Nature paper Dear Author, Your paper A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature (please note that this title has been taken from early proofs, so do not worry if you are currently in touch with us concerning alternative wording) has beenscheduled for publication in Nature on 29 May. Please forward this information to any co-authors. A week before the publication of each issue, Nature distributes a press release highlighting papers of general interest. Journalists are given the name of the author(s) to contact, together with phone and fax numbers and e-mail addresses. On the Friday before publication, journalists are given online access not only to the papers on the press release but to all the papers due to appear in that issue. This means that your work could well receive media interest even if not featured on the press release, so it would be helpful if you (as corresponding author, we would, as a matter of course, put your name and affiliation on our press release as a contact, and attribute the work to you plus colleagues, so please let me know if this would not be appropriate) or a colleague could be available to answer any inquiries in the days leading up to publication. The content of the press release and papers is embargoed until 1800 London time / 1300 US Eastern Time on 28 May, the day before publication. You are free to discuss your paper with the media, but we ask you to do this no more than a week before the publication date, and to ensure that Natures embargo conditions are understood by journalists and others. Nature reserves the right to halt the consideration or publication of a paper if these conditions are broken. Journalists are permitted to show papers to independent specialists a few days in advance of publication, under embargo conditions, solely for the purpose of commenting on the work described. Wire services stories must always carry the embargo time at the head of each item, and may not be sent out more than 24 hours before that time. Journalists should credit Nature as the source of stories covered. If you need further clarification about anything related to publicity, please contact one of the Nature offices, as indicated below. From North America Katherine Anderson, Nature New York Tel: +1 212 726 9231; E-mail: [3]k.anderson@natureny.com Katie McGoldrick, Nature Washington Tel: +1 202 737 2355; E-mail: [4]k.mcgoldrick@naturedc.com From Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and Taiwan Mika Nakano, Nature Tokyo Tel: +81 3 3267 8751; E-mail: [5]m.nakano@natureasia.com From the UK/Europe/other countries not listed above Ruth Francis, Nature London Tel: +44 20 7843 4562; E-mail: [6]r.francis@nature.com Jen Middleton, Nature London Tel: +44 20 7843 4502; E-mail: [7]j.middleton@nature.com If you are reporting sequence or structural data that with an accession code for a public database, we request you to set the release into the public domain upon receipt of this letter. This will allow our editors to test the link from the journal website to the database in readiness for the date of publication of your article. For authors reporting protein structures, release of the coordinates now will also allow us to set up a three-dimensional view window within the online version of the article. For any queries concerning proofs or corrections, please contact the Editorial Production department in London([8]l.wethmar@nature.com). You and your coauthors, or your institutions, can also order copies of the issue of Nature containing your article: please enquire at[9]feedback@nature.com, stating the publication reference and the number of copies required. If you and your coauthors are not subscribers to Nature and would like to subscribe, please contact [10]subscriptions@nature.com and ask for details of special prices for published Nature authors. Yours sincerely, Jen Middleton Press Officer, Nature Tel: +44 20 7843 4502 Fax: +44 20 7843 4951 E-mail: [11]j.middleton@nature.com OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle of next week. Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last paragraph which we're still working on. There will also be a News and Views item from Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John. It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper. I hope to get these later two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when. Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the probable underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott Woodruff more about this. A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket corrections. My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for the SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books. [12]http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/ and click on SST to see some comparisons. The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also been digitized. There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of those not already done. If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S. Atlantic/indian oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in 1939/40. Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle and then back into the fray. ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books. Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this! If you want me to look through anything then email me. I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in a few weeks if you hear nothing. Cheers Phil PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show - the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening. Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the environment minister. She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas) seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract CO2 from the atmosphere! He'd also not heard of the UHI! Still lots of education needed. PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is. [13]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! 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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2475. 2008-05-22 16:28:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:28:22 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Keith [et al], I had promised yesterday to provide you with an exposition on the s.14(1) 'exemption' for vexatious requests. Section 14(1) merely states: "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious." There has been much discussion about what constitutes a vexatious request and IC0 updated it's guidance last year. To quote the guidance: While giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner's general approach is that a request (which may be the latest in a series of requests) can be treated as vexatious where: o it would impose a significant burden on the public authority in terms of expense or distraction; and meets at least one of the following criteria. o It clearly does not have any serious purpose or value o It is designed to cause disruption or annoyance o It has the effect of harassing the public authority o It can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. To determine whether a request imposes a significant burden, a public authority should consider whether complying with the request would cause it to divert a disproportionate amount of resources from its core business. However, where the only concern of the public authority is the burden on resources of complying with a request, it should instead consider whether it would be more appropriate to apply section 12 (exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit). The question for us is whether there is a 'significant burden' on UEA imposed by this request, and then whether any of the other considerations are met. My take is as follows: 1. There is a burden on the organisation but how significant is it, and can it be addressed via section 12? (In the cases cited by the guidance the burden has been much greater than what we would be facing both in number of requests and hours taken) 2. The request does have a serious (if misguided) purpose, it is not designed solely to cause disruption, and it would be a stretch to characterise it as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable. ( The ICO states that an apparently tedious or spurious request, which in fact relates to a genuine concern, must not be dismissed. But a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request which a reasonable person would describe as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.) 3. As to 'harassing' us, most of the guidance and jurisprudence on this relates to repeated requests; it also noted that intemperate language is not itself harassment but can contribute to the finding of harassment where it is extreme - I'm not sure that one, singular request would be found to be 'harassment' The other issue from a pragmatic point of view is that adjudging the request to be vexatious will be like waving a red flag to a bull.... We can almost guarantee an appeal and further requests.... If we deal with it straight up under s.12, s.41 etc, then any further similar requests begin to very much appear as vexatious; one of the grounds for finding a request 'manifestly unreasonable' is the fact that the matter has already been addressed/answered, or where the answer to one request is taken as the starting point for the next request - this has also been shown to be evidence that a request has 'no serious purpose or value'.... I am happy to engage in a discussion on this matter but my advice would be that a claim of vexatiousness would be difficult to maintain for this request alone.... Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [[1]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Hi Dave >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my letter over >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is unreasonable - >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter 6 authors >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >cheers >Keirth > >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was going to make >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >along the lines >>of .... >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >letter of 31 >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >under this >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the requester is not >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >question... Your >>opinions? >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: >> > >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >comments and on >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you , I intend >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to Holland tomorrow >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >I did not >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not believe that this >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process in any >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >thanks again >> >Keith >> > >> >-- >> >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/ >> > > >-- >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/ > > 1362. 2008-05-22 17:55:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 22 May 2008 17:55:26 +0800 (CST) from: subject: Re: Long stations in CRU database in China and surrounding to: Phil Jones Phil, This is list of the stations, tell me if it is ok please. Qingxiang 4 50854 46 23 125 19 popu 19.081 suburb 50834 46 36 121 13 popu 0.5 suburb 3 50949 45 07 124 50 popu 4.591 suburb 3 54135 43 36 122 16 popu 33.06 suburb 54134 43 36 121 17 popu 3.88 small town 7 54497 40 03 124 20 popu 65.96 suburb 54486 4017 123 17 popu 0.5 suburb 4 50963 45 58 128 44 popu 3.568 suburb 7 54324 41 33 120 27 popu 41.43 urban 54326 41 23 119 42 popu 0.5 small town 4 50756 47 26 126 58 popu 5.991 suburb 7 54616 38 20 116 50 popu 44.36 54606 38 14 115 44 popu 2.35 suburb 7 54725 37 30 117 32 popu 5.6 garden 7 54476 40 10 122 09 popu 0.5 suburb 10 54936 35 35 118 50 popu 11.79 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 10 54852 36 56 120 42 popu 20.41 suburb 54868 3616 12123 popu 0.5 54871 3652 12226 popu 0.5 seashore 10 54916 35 34 116 51 popu 19.37 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 9 57193 33 47 114 31 popu 6.64 suburb 57181 3353 11303 popu 3.86 suburb 12 57378 31 10 112 34 popu 30.36 suburb 57355 31 04 110 24 popu 3.74 suburb 12 57584 29 23 113 05 popu 81.46 57583 29 59 113 55 popu 0.5 suburb 12 57662 29 03 111 41 popu 70.73 urban 57669 2823 11113 popu 4.18 top of mountain 10 58144 33 36 119 02 popu 38.83 58015 34 25 116 20 popu 4.64 suburb 10 58150 33 46 120 15 popu 10.60 suburb 58265 32 04 121 36 popu 0.5 rural 15 57799 27 07 114 58 popu 22.64 suburb 57776 27 18 11242 popu 0.5 top of mountain 13 58314 31 24 116 19 popu 4.07 suburb 10 58251 32 51 120 19 popu 14.80 58265 3204 12136 popu 0.5 rural 16 58754 27 20 120 12 popu 3.21 top of hill(suburb) 58760 2750 12109 popu 1.69 island 15 59293 23 44 114 41 popu 19.47 urban 59321 2347 11730 popu 1.61 suburb hill 15 59417 22 22 106 45 popu 3.32 urban 59446 22 25 10918 popu 3.62 suburb 13 58477 30 02 122 07 popu 0.5 island 13 58646 28 27 119 55 popu 19.11 urban 58653 2849 12055 popu 0.5 mountain 16 59501 22 47 115 22 popu 28.85 suburb 59456 22 21 110 56popu 1.72 suburb 12 57537 29 18 108 10 popu 3.44 suburb 12 57606 28 08 105 50 popu 6.92 suburb 57633 2848 10846 popu 3.89 suburb 11 56287 29 59 103 00 popu 13.04 mountain 56376 2921 10241 popu 2.89 suburb 14 56751 25 42 100 11 popu 20.31 suburb 56763 2544 10152 popu 2.05 suburb 9 57253 33 51 110 49 popu 0.5 12 57504 29 35 105 03 popu 64.87 urban 57522 2945 10725 popu 0.5 suburb 11 56193 32 25 104 31 popu 1.55 suburb 9 57127 33 04 107 12 popu 26.49 suburb 57106 3319 10609 popu 3.27 top of hill 9 53863 37 30 111 56 popu 16.27 rural 53853 36 42 110 57 popu 1.16 topof mountain 8 53915 35 33 106 40 popu 14.44 suburb 53929 35 12 107 48 popu 0.5 rural 1 51379 44 01 89 34 popu 4.034 suburb 6 53593 39 50 114 34 popu 4.37 suburb 8 52983 35 35 103 11 popu 2.74 rural 6 53336 41 34 108 31 popu 0.5 grassland 4842. 2008-05-23 13:59:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 May 2008 13:59:37 +0100 from: "Newton, Alicia" subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil- Thanks for agreeing to help us with this manuscript. I will send you a link to the manuscript and instructions for referees in an e-mail to follow shortly. I would be grateful if you could consider the following questions in your review. Do you feel that this represents an advance in our understanding of the tropical response to volcanic forcing? Tropical climate over the past 4 centuries more generally? Does the record generated fully support the conclusions? Thanks again for your help. I look forward to reading you comments! Alicia ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 May 2008 13:50 To: Newton, Alicia Subject: Re: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript NGS-2008-05-00486 Alicia, OK. Send the manuscript or details of how to access it. Cheers Phil At 13:26 23/05/2008, you wrote: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12115455812840711" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:26:21 -0400 Message-Id: <92121154558176@rhwww3.nature.com.nature.com> Dear Professor Jones As you may have heard, we have recently launched Nature Geoscience, a monthly research journal (please see our website [1]http://www.nature.com/ngeo for more information). A short manuscript has been submitted to Nature Geoscience, which we were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript comes from Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope and is entitled "Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries". Its first paragraph is pasted below. Would you be able to assess the novelty and importance of this manuscript for us, within about 14 days of receiving the paper? If you are unable to help us with this, can you suggest any alternative referees who would have an appropriate expertise? I would also be grateful for any thoughts that you might have regarding other referees who would be appropriate to complement your expertise on this work. Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours sincerely Alicia Newton Associate Editor Nature Geoscience Nature Publishing Group The Macmillan Building 4 Crinan Street London N1 9XW UK +44 20 7833 4000 Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope Knowledge of volcanism's impact on tropical climate is limited prior to the instrumental period, yet important for understanding climate variability. Here we combine 19 coral, tree-ring and ice core proxies into an annual composite record that provides a comprehensive view of volcanism's impact on tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) during recent centuries. We find an association between tropical volcanism and cold reconstructed tropical temperatures, although the cooling is spatially variable across the tropics. Only minimal cooling is observed following extratropical eruptions. Severe conditions following the (likely tropical) unknown1 and Tambora, Indonesia eruptions of the early 1800s suggest that this was the coldest sustained period of the Little Ice Age in the tropics. By contrast, the tropical impact of the 1600 Huaynaputina, Peru event2 appears much weaker than at higher latitudes, but the number of tropical proxies at this time is low. Our results have implications for how the tropical ocean-atmosphere system responds to natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing. 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 geoscience@nature.com. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** 1273. 2008-05-23 16:38:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 May 2008 16:38:03 +0800 (CST) from: subject: Re: Long stations in CRU database in China and surrounding to: Phil Jones Phil, I am sending the data from rural stations to you by this email.I think maybe someone here can average them use the same method,which will decrease the randomicity of the calculation. Qingxiang 4 50854 46 23 125 19 popu 19.081 suburb 50834 46 36 121 13 popu 0.5 suburb 3 50949 45 07 124 50 popu 4.591 suburb 3 54135 43 36 122 16 popu 33.06 suburb 54134 43 36 121 17 popu 3.88 small town 7 54497 40 03 124 20 popu 65.96 suburb 54486 40 17 123 17 popu 0.5 suburb 4 50963 45 58 128 44 popu 3.568 suburb 7 54324 41 33 120 27 popu 41.43 urban 54326 41 23 119 42 popu 0.5 small town 4 50756 47 26 126 58 popu 5.991 suburb 7 54616 38 20 116 50 popu 44.36 54606 38 14 115 44 popu 2.35 suburb 7 54725 37 30 117 32 popu 5.6 garden 7 54476 40 10 122 09 popu 0.5 suburb 10 54936 35 35 118 50 popu 11.79 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 10 54852 36 56 120 42 popu 20.41 suburb 54868 3616 12123 popu 0.5 54871 3652 12226 popu 0.5 seashore 10 54916 35 34 116 51 popu 19.37 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 9 57193 33 47 114 31 popu 6.64 suburb 57181 3353 11303 popu 3.86 suburb 12 57378 31 10 112 34 popu 30.36 suburb 57355 31 04 110 24 popu 3.74 suburb 12 57584 29 23 113 05 popu 81.46 57583 29 59 113 55 popu 0.5 suburb 12 57662 29 03 111 41 popu 70.73 urban 57669 2823 11113 popu 4.18 top of mountain 10 58144 33 36 119 02 popu 38.83 58015 34 25 116 20 popu 4.64 suburb 10 58150 33 46 120 15 popu 10.60 suburb 58265 32 04 121 36 popu 0.5 rural 15 57799 27 07 114 58 popu 22.64 suburb 57776 27 18 11242 popu 0.5 top of mountain 13 58314 31 24 116 19 popu 4.07 suburb 10 58251 32 51 120 19 popu 14.80 58265 3204 12136 popu 0.5 rural 16 58754 27 20 120 12 popu 3.21 top of hill(suburb) 58760 2750 12109 popu 1.69 island 15 59293 23 44 114 41 popu 19.47 urban 59321 2347 11730 popu 1.61 suburb hill 15 59417 22 22 106 45 popu 3.32 urban 59446 22 25 10918 popu 3.62 suburb 13 58477 30 02 122 07 popu 0.5 island 13 58646 28 27 119 55 popu 19.11 urban 58653 2849 12055 popu 0.5 mountain 16 59501 22 47 115 22 popu 28.85 suburb 59456 22 21 110 56popu 1.72 suburb 12 57537 29 18 108 10 popu 3.44 suburb 12 57606 28 08 105 50 popu 6.92 suburb 57633 2848 10846 popu 3.89 suburb 11 56287 29 59 103 00 popu 13.04 mountain 56376 2921 10241 popu 2.89 suburb 14 56751 25 42 100 11 popu 20.31 suburb 56763 2544 10152 popu 2.05 suburb 9 57253 33 51 110 49 popu 0.5 12 57504 29 35 105 03 popu 64.87 urban 57522 2945 10725 popu 0.5 suburb 11 56193 32 25 104 31 popu 1.55 suburb 9 57127 33 04 107 12 popu 26.49 suburb 57106 3319 10609 popu 3.27 top of hill 9 53863 37 30 111 56 popu 16.27 rural 53853 36 42 110 57 popu 1.16 topof mountain 8 53915 35 33 106 40 popu 14.44 suburb 53929 35 12 107 48 popu 0.5 rural 1 51379 44 01 89 34 popu 4.034 suburb 6 53593 39 50 114 34 popu 4.37 suburb 8 52983 35 35 103 11 popu 2.74 rural 6 53336 41 34 108 31 popu 0.5 grassland Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mean2004_rural.dat" 2273. 2008-05-23 20:52:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 23 May 2008 20:52:52 +0100 from: David Thompson subject: Fwd: Your Nature paper - press release details to: Phil Jones , Mike Wallace , John Kennedy All, Here is Nature's press release. They note they can't change any of the text, but I've argued they need to change one word at the end of the last paragraph (see my email below, and the release below that). Please also see the warnings about the embargo on this press release. -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: David Thompson <[1]davet@atmos.colostate.edu> Date: May 23, 2008 8:50:23 PM BDT To: "Twinn, Rachel" <[2]r.twinn@nature.com> Subject: Re: Your Nature paper - press release details Rachel, The release looks OK. But I think you should change one word in the first paragraph. Right now the last 4 words of the paragraph state: "from the mid-twentieth century." They should state: "in the mid-twentieth century" The difference is very, very important. What is currently written suggests the record will change from the mid century to now. That's not correct, and it will cause a lot of confusion in the general public. The record will change in the mid century, but not in the recent decades. I hope you can change this one word. Thanks, -Dave On May 23, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Twinn, Rachel wrote: Dear Author, We are pleased to inform you that your paper entitled A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature has been featured in this week's press release for Nature. A copy of the press release entry about your paper, which has already been distributed to the media, is included below for your interest and to assist you if you receive any enquiries from journalists. You may redistribute this press release to your coauthors and press officers of your and your coauthors institutions and funders, but you must ensure that they are aware that the content of the press release and paper is embargoed until 1800 London time / 1300 US Eastern Time on 28 May, and that distribution beyond these recipients must wait until after that time. You and your coauthors are free to discuss your work with the media before then, but we ask you to ensure that Nature's embargo conditions are understood in each case, and to remind journalists to specify Nature as the source of their information in any material they produce as a result of receiving the press release. The press release is an independent summary of your work written in a style and at a level appropriate for the media. Press releases advertise the interest of a paper in an attention-catching manner, and are not abstracts of it. Please be aware that we are unable to correct minor inaccuracies or discuss questions of emphasis; but do contact us as quickly as possible if you believe that the summary contains an inaccuracy that is both factual and significant. The release is sent by Nature only to members of the media who are registered for our press site, and contains links to the full papers to ensure accurate reporting. If journalists contact you about your current Nature paper, you are advised to ask whether they have read it and, if they have not, to suggest they do so (you may send them a copy yourself under embargo conditions, or refer them to Natures press site or to one of the press offices below) so that they have a more complete picture of your work than can be obtained from the press release alone. After publication, you may check the online media coverage your paper has received [3]here. [4]http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_google.xml&style=xml/05_google.xsl Please note that Nature encourages self-archiving of the accepted version of your manuscript in your funders or institutional repository, six months after publication. This policy compliments the recently announced policies of the US National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust and other research funding bodies around the world. Nature Publishing Group recognizes the efforts of funding bodies to increase access to the research they fund, and we strongly encourage authors to participate in such efforts. For further general information on issues relating to publicity, please refer to the details in our earlier correspondence notifying you of your publication date, or contact one of the Nature offices listed below. From North America Katherine Anderson, Nature New York Tel: +1 212 726 9231; Fax: +1 646 563 7117 E-mail: [5]k.anderson@natureny.com Katie McGoldrick, Nature Washington Tel: +1 202 737 2355; E-mail: [6]k.mcgoldrick@naturedc.com From Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and Taiwan Mika Nakano, Nature Tokyo Tel: +81 3 3267 8751; E-mail: [7]m.nakano@natureasia.com From UK, Europe, other countries not listed Rachel Twinn, Nature London Tel: +44 207 843 4658; E-mail: [8]r.twinn@nature.com Yours sincerely, Rachel Twinn Assistant Press Officer, Nature Featured press release entry: Climate records: A cold snap explained (pp 646-649; N&V) Scientists have spotted a large discontinuity in the record of twentieth-century global-mean surface temperature. A study in Nature this week suggests that an abrupt temperature drop in 1945 previously interpreted to be part of a larger cooling trend is actually due to uncorrected instrumental biases introduced when measuring temperatures at sea. The discovery solves a long-standing mystery in climate change research and will have a significant impact on the historical record of temperatures from the mid-twentieth century. The record of global-mean temperatures from the last 100 years is the most widely recognized time series in climate change research, providing key evidence for global warming and a crucial tool used to distinguish between anthropogenically induced warming and natural climate variability. Until now it was thought to be largely free of substantial uncorrected instrument biases. David Thompson and colleagues reanalysed the record while filtering out background noise from natural events such as El Niño. They then studied all the prominent drops in temperature and managed to match all except one in late 1945 to a volcanic eruption occurring at the time. This marked drop in temperature was not associated with any known climate phenomenon but did coincide with a significant change in shipboard instrumentation used to collect data. After the Second World War, measurements were transferred from US ships, which relied on engine room intake measurements, to UK ships, which used a different method known as uninsulated bucket measurements. The authors suggest that although correcting this error is likely to change the form of parts of the overall record, particularly in the middle twentieth century, it is unlikely to significantly affect estimates of century-long trends in global-mean temperatures. CONTACT David Thompson (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA) Tel: +1 970 491 3338; E-mail: [9]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Chris Forest (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Earth, Cambridge, MA, USA) N&V author Tel: +1 617 253 6958; E-mail: [10]ceforest@mit.edu Richard Reynolds (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC, USA) N&V author Tel: +1 828 271 4302; E-mail: [11]Richard.W.Reynolds@noaa.gov ______________________________________________________________________________ Any feedback or suggestions about this service can be sent by email to [12]press@nature.com Nature, the worlds leading scientific journal, [13]www.nature.com/nature ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 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 1701. 2008-05-26 10:12:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:12:07 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: FOI stuff to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith and Phil, I see on ClimateAudit that there are now many posts on Wahl & Ammann, its citing by Chap 6 of IPCC and how this fits with the publication deadlines etc., late changes to the IPCC publication deadline rules (a memo from Manning), plus "proof" that Ammann corresponded directly with us and not via the official review comments process, and thus his correspondence is apparently not included in the official set of comments/responses: McIntrye: "I’ve added a section to the above post showing the remarkable parallelism in language between the Reply to Review Comments for Review Comment 6-735 and language in then unsubmitted Ammann and Wahl. The Chapter Authors asserted that they were giving a “balanced” view of the literature, while relying on unpeer reviewed opinion from Ammann to supposedly rebut Review Comments." David Holland comments that he will follow up some of these issues: "Incidentally, the email address in the Manning memo is ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov and must be subject to US Freedom of Information Law. I will be asking some questions this side of the pond, hopefully someone in the US will also ask a few." So I'm sure that Holland will be pursuing or even expanding his FOI request! I can't remember what emails I do or don't have, but it would be useful if we do have the one from Wahl/Ammann confirming that their article received final acceptance, to demonstrate that we followed the rules concerning the deadlines for material that we cited. Tim 4750. 2008-05-27 13:29:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 27 13:29:34 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Met Office Hadley Centre Scientific Review Group - Email Review to: "sue hammond" , "John Harries" Sue, Here's a few comments - resulting from the dreary bank holiday weekend. I didn't read everything just the documents where I thought I could say something useful. First in the numbered documents 1-8 1. Intro - it would seem that the issue we were having trouble with when we last met has now become Climate Products! It is still referred to as Climate Impacts elsewhere. It does seem as though the issue of branding has been addressed. I hope it is just as obvious during the presentations in November. 2. The Northwest Passage has been open for some more summers than just 2007. Hopefully we will get to see how well HadGEM1 gets to simulate the reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent. 3. It would be useful to see the two Sexton et al (2008) publications for our meeting. I'll get these anyway being involved in UKCIP08. It might be useful getting a presentation on UKCIP08 during our Nov 5-7 meeting, as the national launch is on Nov 20. This would help understand part of item 6 on the generation of the pdfs. I'm thinking here of the rest of the group as the information given here is quite brief. Quite useful for the rest of the UK people with the launch 2 weeks after our meeting. 4. In relation to UKCIP08 the number of RCM perturbed physics runs has been reduced from 17 to 11. 5. By Nov 5-7 there will be more concrete results of the model/obs comparisons related to lower tropospheric lapse rate changes. In this respect (and probably elsewhere) there could have been more links to work going on outside MOHC that many within MOHC are aware of. 6. Minor aside - useful to know the number of MOHC staff who got the Nobel Peace Prize certificates. 7. Another minor aside - I wouldn't have though that the expert witness statements re Al Gore's film being distributed to UK schools as a highlight! 8. In section 2, I would like to hope that DEFRA is being told not to worry that much about climate fluctuations on interannual timescales relating to ENSO variability. Should be telling DEFRA that what matters is the 5-year plus timescale. I suspect that these notes to DEFRA were requested, but relate to skeptic blog sites and poor media reporting. I just want to be assured that DEFRA are getting the right message. 9. Also in section 2, there are brief details of papers on SST. There is a paper coming out in this week's Nature (May 29) that also relates to SST. There is an MOHC author on the paper. AATSR isn't that widely known generally, and it seem to me that this brief document isn't fully aware of the big picture with respect to SST issues recently related to the dominance of drifters and buoys now as opposed to ships. MOHC seem to be aware of the big picture when it comes to D&A issues, but not when it comes to SST, or it doesn't come through in this document. 10. The GRUAN initiative is to be applauded, as it addresses some of the problems that resulted from MOHC's decision to no longer be a monitoring centre for the GUAN. Figure 1.4 relates back to my #5 above. Cheers Phil At 13:06 19/05/2008, sue hammond wrote: Dear Colleagues, You are aware that the annual cycle for meetings of the MOHC SRG has changed and that there will be a period of 18 months from the 2007 meeting to the 2008 meeting in November. It was proposed that a brief email review of some aspects of the work of the MOHC be undertaken earlier in 2008 while we adjust from Spring to Autumn meetings and to ensure some continuity. On behalf of the SRG Chairman, John Harries I am attaching a number of documents from the Met Office Hadley Centre (MOHC) which are listed below. John is very grateful to the MOHC in providing the papers but is aware there is a lot of material (although items 1, 3 and 5 are just 1 page). He has requested that you look through the material and provide any brief comments on any aspects you would like to comment on. John has asked me to stress that this is very much a light review and the main review and report will be the main meeting in November. Please note Item 2 is particularly long and will be sent in a following email. John suggests for this brief review it could be used just for reference and will be reviewed in more detail for the main meeting. Please could I request that you send any comments to me by Monday 9 June. We will collate any comments received and then John will send these round for any final comments/approval before forwarding to the MOHC. If you do not wish to make any comments it would help if you could send me an 'no comments' email. Papers: 1. SRG introduction 2. Annual Technical Report (to be sent in a separate e-mail) 3. Science Strategy Cover Page 4. Hadley Centre Science Strategy (vn3.2) 5. Collaboration Strategy Cover Page 6. Collaboration Strategy 7. Annual Statement of Met Office Hadley Centre climate modelling (ICP 2.1.4) 8. Strategy for Seamless Model Assessment (ICP Q4) Please do contact me if you have any questions. Many thanks and kind regards, Sue Sue Postle Hammond, ESYS plc, Secretariat for the GECC and Hadley Centre Scientific Review Group on behalf of Defra Tel/Fax: 44 1243 574810 Mobile: 07785 988696 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4229. 2008-05-27 14:41:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 May 2008 14:41:06 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: David Douglass to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in "Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper. At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the journal "Nature". As you can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems. With your permission, therefore, I'd like to resubmit our revised manuscript by no later than close of business tomorrow. I've incorporated most of the suggested changes I've received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we've now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that's it's more important to get the manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about relatively minor details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper and the response to the reviewers later this evening. Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1797. 2008-05-27 15:26:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 May 2008 15:26:43 +0200 from: Rasmus Benestad subject: Re: EMS/ECAC 2008 - suggesting moving contribution to UC2. to: Phil Jones Thanks! Yuo go to 'Session Organization' for you session http://www.cosis.net/members/meetings/sessions/organizer_overview.php?p_id=328&s_id=5766 and then part I there you will see the list of submissions with requested type. you have to choose between 'accept', 'reject' or 'transfer'. I suggest you select 'poster' for the paper. 90 contributions is great! If you find talks that suit 'synoptic climatology', then I don't mind if you transfer them to UC5 (I had 37 originally, but two do not really belong in our session). Cheers! Rasmus Phil Jones wrote: > > Rasmus, > OK I'll take your paper. It means that I will then have 90! > > I have yet to look through all of them! Do you happen to know > what the oral/poster ratio is? also I can't see in mine if any said poster > and not oral. Where can I find that? > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:46 26/05/2008, you wrote: >> Dear Phil, >> >> After having read through the submitted abstracts, I suggest moving >> one of the contributions from my session UC5 (synoptic climatology) to >> your session UC1, but I want to check with you first that you agree >> with my suggestion. Here is the abstract. Please let me know, and I'll >> do the transfer on Copernicus. >> >> Yours >> >> Rasmus >> >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1830. 2008-05-27 15:36:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue May 27 15:36:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Your Nature paper - press release details to: Michael Mann , Gavin Schmidt Mike, Gavin, Attached is the press release. Also below you can see what Nature will use in their News item. Dave Thompson has tried to get them to change 'from' to 'in' at the end of the first paragraph. Hopefully they will make this important change. I've still not seen the N&V item. Embargo time is given again. 1300 your time tomorrow. I wouldn't put it up too quick after this as it might appear to be collusion. There are a number of threads on CA yesterday related to when papers were accepted that were referred to in the various drafts and the final version in the AR4. It is as though they haven't got anything better to do! This seems to be their level though as it doesn't involve the science. Lots of snipping going on as well - some comments must be personal for McIntyre to restrict them. No doubt we will be getting some more FOI requests. In the UK we have to ask the people who we are corresponding with if they are happy to make emails available. All are saying no, so making it easier for us. Cheers Phil To: Phil Jones , Mike Wallace , John Kennedy From: David Thompson Subject: Fwd: Your Nature paper - press release details Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 20:52:52 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753) X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 3675055 - 369296846323 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3675055&m=369296846323&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3675055&m=369296846323&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=3675055&m=369296846323&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO All, Here is Nature's press release. They note they can't change any of the text, but I've argued they need to change one word at the end of the last paragraph (see my email below, and the release below that). Please also see the warnings about the embargo on this press release. -Dave Begin forwarded message: From: David Thompson <[4]davet@atmos.colostate.edu> Date: May 23, 2008 8:50:23 PM BDT To: "Twinn, Rachel" <[5]r.twinn@nature.com> Subject: Re: Your Nature paper - press release details Rachel, The release looks OK. But I think you should change one word in the first paragraph. Right now the last 4 words of the paragraph state: "from the mid-twentieth century." They should state: "in the mid-twentieth century" The difference is very, very important. What is currently written suggests the record will change from the mid century to now. That's not correct, and it will cause a lot of confusion in the general public. The record will change in the mid century, but not in the recent decades. I hope you can change this one word. Thanks, -Dave On May 23, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Twinn, Rachel wrote: Dear Author, We are pleased to inform you that your paper entitled A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature has been featured in this week's press release for Nature. A copy of the press release entry about your paper, which has already been distributed to the media, is included below for your interest and to assist you if you receive any enquiries from journalists. You may redistribute this press release to your coauthors and press officers of your and your coauthors institutions and funders, but you must ensure that they are aware that the content of the press release and paper is embargoed until 1800 London time / 1300 US Eastern Time on 28 May, and that distribution beyond these recipients must wait until after that time. You and your coauthors are free to discuss your work with the media before then, but we ask you to ensure that Nature's embargo conditions are understood in each case, and to remind journalists to specify Nature as the source of their information in any material they produce as a result of receiving the press release. The press release is an independent summary of your work written in a style and at a level appropriate for the media. Press releases advertise the interest of a paper in an attention-catching manner, and are not abstracts of it. Please be aware that we are unable to correct minor inaccuracies or discuss questions of emphasis; but do contact us as quickly as possible if you believe that the summary contains an inaccuracy that is both factual and significant. The release is sent by Nature only to members of the media who are registered for our press site, and contains links to the full papers to ensure accurate reporting. If journalists contact you about your current Nature paper, you are advised to ask whether they have read it and, if they have not, to suggest they do so (you may send them a copy yourself under embargo conditions, or refer them to Natures press site or to one of the press offices below) so that they have a more complete picture of your work than can be obtained from the press release alone. After publication, you may check the online media coverage your paper has received [6]here. [7]http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_google.xml&style=xml/05_google. xsl Please note that Nature encourages self-archiving of the accepted version of your manuscript in your funders or institutional repository, six months after publication. This policy compliments the recently announced policies of the US National Institutes of Health, the Wellcome Trust and other research funding bodies around the world. Nature Publishing Group recognizes the efforts of funding bodies to increase access to the research they fund, and we strongly encourage authors to participate in such efforts. For further general information on issues relating to publicity, please refer to the details in our earlier correspondence notifying you of your publication date, or contact one of the Nature offices listed below. From North America Katherine Anderson, Nature New York Tel: +1 212 726 9231; Fax: +1 646 563 7117 E-mail: [8]k.anderson@natureny.com Katie McGoldrick, Nature Washington Tel: +1 202 737 2355; E-mail: [9]k.mcgoldrick@naturedc.com From Japan, Korea, China, Singapore and Taiwan Mika Nakano, Nature Tokyo Tel: +81 3 3267 8751; E-mail: [10]m.nakano@natureasia.com From UK, Europe, other countries not listed Rachel Twinn, Nature London Tel: +44 207 843 4658; E-mail: [11]r.twinn@nature.com Yours sincerely, Rachel Twinn Assistant Press Officer, Nature Featured press release entry: Climate records: A cold snap explained (pp 646-649; N&V) Scientists have spotted a large discontinuity in the record of twentieth-century global-mean surface temperature. A study in Nature this week suggests that an abrupt temperature drop in 1945 previously interpreted to be part of a larger cooling trend is actually due to uncorrected instrumental biases introduced when measuring temperatures at sea. The discovery solves a long-standing mystery in climate change research and will have a significant impact on the historical record of temperatures from the mid-twentieth century. The record of global-mean temperatures from the last 100 years is the most widely recognized time series in climate change research, providing key evidence for global warming and a crucial tool used to distinguish between anthropogenically induced warming and natural climate variability. Until now it was thought to be largely free of substantial uncorrected instrument biases. David Thompson and colleagues reanalysed the record while filtering out background noise from natural events such as El Niño. They then studied all the prominent drops in temperature and managed to match all except one in late 1945 to a volcanic eruption occurring at the time. This marked drop in temperature was not associated with any known climate phenomenon but did coincide with a significant change in shipboard instrumentation used to collect data. After the Second World War, measurements were transferred from US ships, which relied on engine room intake measurements, to UK ships, which used a different method known as uninsulated bucket measurements. The authors suggest that although correcting this error is likely to change the form of parts of the overall record, particularly in the middle twentieth century, it is unlikely to significantly affect estimates of century-long trends in global-mean temperatures. CONTACT David Thompson (Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA) Tel: +1 970 491 3338; E-mail: [12]davet@atmos.colostate.edu Chris Forest (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Earth, Cambridge, MA, USA) N&V author Tel: +1 617 253 6958; E-mail: [13]ceforest@mit.edu Richard Reynolds (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC, USA) N&V author Tel: +1 828 271 4302; E-mail: [14]Richard.W.Reynolds@noaa.gov ______________________________________________________________________________ Any feedback or suggestions about this service can be sent by email to [15]press@nature.com Nature, the worlds leading scientific journal, [16]www.nature.com/nature ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [17]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 W. J. Thompson [18]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 514. 2008-05-27 17:36:26 ______________________________________________________ cc: "keith Briffa" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:36:26 -0600 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: request for your emails to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Oh MAN! will this crap ever end?? Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through emails. I don't recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC. I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job and the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced way. So long, Caspar On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear Caspar, I hope everything's fine with you. Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential. Sorry to bother you with this, Tim (cc Keith & Phil) 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 1137. 2008-05-27 17:38:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:38:56 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the 'appropriate limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In particular, your input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about right of appeal are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Hi Dave >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my letter over >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is unreasonable - >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter 6 authors >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >cheers >Keirth > >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was going to make >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >along the lines >>of .... >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >letter of 31 >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >under this >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the requester is not >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >question... Your >>opinions? >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: >> > >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >comments and on >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you , I intend >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to Holland tomorrow >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >I did not >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not believe that this >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process in any >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >thanks again >> >Keith >> > >> >-- >> >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:\Documents and Settings\Tim Osborn\My Documents\Eudora\Attach\Refusal_letter_draft.doc" 2375. 2008-05-27 17:44:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:44:29 +0800 (CST) from: subject: I changed a little in the rural data to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I have changed a little in the dataset (59456 is not fit for rural station, so 59626 is used to replace it), I hope this change would not bring Dave much inconveniences. Qingxiang Received: (from rays.cma.gov.cn [139.222.202.16]) by rays.cma.gov.cn (MOS 3.8.5-GA) with HTTP/1.1 id ANA94453 (AUTH liqx); Fri, 23 May 2008 17:19:59 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 17:19:59 +0800 (CST) From: Subject: Re: pdfs pf papers I've been giving you hard copies of (2) To: Phil Jones X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.8.5-GA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="-----af037a0889a52e1540b7c90faa32580d" Phil, I hope it is right this time. Qingxiang Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\mean2004_rural2.dat" 4 50854 46 23 125 19 popu 19.081 suburb 50834 46 36 121 13 popu 0.5 suburb 3 50949 45 07 124 50 popu 4.591 suburb 3 54135 43 36 122 16 popu 33.06 suburb 54134 43 36 121 17 popu 3.88 small town 7 54497 40 03 124 20 popu 65.96 suburb 54486 40 17 123 17 popu 0.5 suburb 4 50963 45 58 128 44 popu 3.568 suburb 7 54324 41 33 120 27 popu 41.43 urban 54326 41 23 119 42 popu 0.5 small town 4 50756 47 26 126 58 popu 5.991 suburb 7 54616 38 20 116 50 popu 44.36 54606 38 14 115 44 popu 2.35 suburb 7 54725 37 30 117 32 popu 5.6 garden 7 54476 40 10 122 09 popu 0.5 suburb 10 54936 35 35 118 50 popu 11.79 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 10 54852 36 56 120 42 popu 20.41 suburb 54868 3616 12123 popu 0.5 54871 3652 12226 popu 0.5 seashore 10 54916 35 34 116 51 popu 19.37 suburb 54909 35 06 115 33 popu 7.71 suburb 9 57193 33 47 114 31 popu 6.64 suburb 57181 3353 11303 popu 3.86 suburb 12 57378 31 10 112 34 popu 30.36 suburb 57355 31 04 110 24 popu 3.74 suburb 12 57584 29 23 113 05 popu 81.46 57583 29 59 113 55 popu 0.5 suburb 12 57662 29 03 111 41 popu 70.73 urban 57669 2823 11113 popu 4.18 top of mountain 10 58144 33 36 119 02 popu 38.83 58015 34 25 116 20 popu 4.64 suburb 10 58150 33 46 120 15 popu 10.60 suburb 58265 32 04 121 36 popu 0.5 rural 15 57799 27 07 114 58 popu 22.64 suburb 57776 27 18 11242 popu 0.5 top of mountain 13 58314 31 24 116 19 popu 4.07 suburb 10 58251 32 51 120 19 popu 14.80 58265 3204 12136 popu 0.5 rural 16 58754 27 20 120 12 popu 3.21 top of hill(suburb) 58760 2750 12109 popu 1.69 island 15 59293 23 44 114 41 popu 19.47 urban 59321 2347 11730 popu 1.61 suburb hill 15 59417 22 22 106 45 popu 3.32 urban 59446 22 25 10918 popu 3.62 suburb 13 58477 30 02 122 07 popu 0.5 island 13 58646 28 27 119 55 popu 19.11 urban 58653 2849 12055 popu 0.5 mountain 16 59501 22 47 115 22 popu 28.85 suburb 59626 21 32 107 58 popu 5.57 top of hill 12 57537 29 18 108 10 popu 3.44 suburb 12 57606 28 08 105 50 popu 6.92 suburb 57633 2848 10846 popu 3.89 suburb 11 56287 29 59 103 00 popu 13.04 mountain 56376 2921 10241 popu 2.89 suburb 14 56751 25 42 100 11 popu 20.31 suburb 56763 2544 10152 popu 2.05 suburb 9 57253 33 51 110 49 popu 0.5 12 57504 29 35 105 03 popu 64.87 urban 57522 2945 10725 popu 0.5 suburb 11 56193 32 25 104 31 popu 1.55 suburb 9 57127 33 04 107 12 popu 26.49 suburb 57106 3319 10609 popu 3.27 top of hill 9 53863 37 30 111 56 popu 16.27 rural 53853 36 42 110 57 popu 1.16 topof mountain 8 53915 35 33 106 40 popu 14.44 suburb 53929 35 12 107 48 popu 0.5 rural 1 51379 44 01 89 34 popu 4.034 suburb 6 53593 39 50 114 34 popu 4.37 suburb 8 52983 35 35 103 11 popu 2.74 rural 6 53336 41 34 108 31 popu 0.5 grassland 3226. 2008-05-27 18:30:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:30:24 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Gents, Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence with us to be confidential? Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states: 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the applicant refocusing the request? In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice and assistance relating to the refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the information that would be available within the cost limit (as required by the Access Code). This should not preclude other `verbal' contact with the applicant, whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant, and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually adopts. And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5) 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of what information could be provided within the cost ceiling. This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a virtually identical provision.... In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow them to proceed as they wish.... I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with the statutory potential to end up with the ICO. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@theiet.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM To: David Palmer Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008 David Holland Attachment Converted: "C:\Documents and Settings\Tim Osborn\My Documents\Eudora\Attach\CRU02.pdf" 1535. 2008-05-27 23:47:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" , "Jones Philip Prof \" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \" date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:47:31 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Dave, re. David Holland's follow-up requests... These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me. But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I'll attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn't get a chance to. Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical Support Unit (hosted by UCAR in the USA) and any responses would have been sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address specified in the quote included in item (2). These requests are, therefore, irrelevant to UEA. Item (3): we'll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other colleagues, and let you know his response. Item (3) also asks for emails from "the journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process". I can confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents. I expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC process. Best wishes Tim On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > Gents, > Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you > provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with > Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence > with us to be confidential? > > Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform > the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and > ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states: > > 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed > the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the > applicant refocusing the request? > > In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request > and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must > state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints > procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice > and assistance relating to the > > refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the > information that would be available within the cost limit (as required > by the Access Code). > > This should not preclude other 'verbal' contact with the applicant, > whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant, > and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually > adopts. > > > And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5) > > 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested > because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. > cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the > additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of > what information could be provided within the cost ceiling. > > This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a > virtually identical provision.... > > In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a > way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester > disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow > them to proceed as they wish.... > > I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in > this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with > the statutory potential to end up with the ICO. > > Cheers, Dave > > ________________________________ > > From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@theiet.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM > To: David Palmer > Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment > Process > > > Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008 > > David Holland > > > > 3773. 2008-05-28 00:03:55 ______________________________________________________ cc: "keith Briffa" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:03:55 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: request for your emails to: ammann@ucar.edu Dear Caspar, I hope everything's fine with you. Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential. Sorry to bother you with this, Tim (cc Keith & Phil) 3963. 2008-05-28 08:46:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 28 08:46:25 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: 5/27/08 to: "Thomas.R.Karl" , Wei-Chyung Wang Wei-Chyung, Attached is the accepted JGR paper. I sent it back for typesetting a few days ago. Not sure what to do - other than good science. As for lawyers, Mike Mann has one who he told me would give some free advice. I realize you may not want to go down this route, but it would be useful to know your options and what it all might involve. I'll give the matter more thought - seeing Tom on June 10/11. I have two Chinese from CMA with me at the moment - including Li Qingxiang. We've done a bit more work with his 728 station network, and it seems as though the 0.1 deg C per decade effect for China is robust to a number of choices - the SST way in the paper, Ren et al (2008) and some new stuff we've done with as rural stations as we can find in China. There is also the Ordinary Weather Station network in China, which have yet to be homogenized. Also looking at the 0.1 deg/decade rate - it appears to be greater more recently. The 1990 results very robust. Also nearly forgot - glad to hear that this is all over. One thought - presuming Keenan has been told the decision, let's see if he does anything to his web site. If not in a few weeks (I doubt he will), then SUNY should put out a press release, and send it around? Cheers Phil At 20:49 27/05/2008, Thomas.R.Karl wrote: Wei-Chyung, I think the real issue is how to prevent these frivolous accusations from occurring again (and try to get some compensation for all your time and effort to get this cleared up). Perhaps the lawyers can advise you as to the best course of action here. Tom Wei-Chyung Wang said the following on 5/27/2008 3:28 PM: Hi, Tom and Phil, I finally got the SUNYA committee report concerning the allegation, the statement from the report, ..finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by Dr. Wang Now, the University wants to know what we would like them to do to restore our reputation. Please get back to me as soon as possible, I am leaving for Taiwan 5/29^th for a Bilateral Workshop on exchanges in Atmospheric Sciences between National Taiwan University and SUNYA, which I have been coordinating in the past year or so. wcw ************************************* Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang Professor of Applied Sciences Atmospheric Sciences Research Center State University of New York 251 Fuller Road Albany, New York 12203 Tel: 518-437-8708 (O) Fax: 518-437-8713 (O) E-mail: [1]wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu [2]http://asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html ************************************** -- 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 [3]Thomas.R.Karl@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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4976. 2008-05-28 11:22:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:22:03 +0100 from: "Carey, Gerald" subject: Re Your ISA to: "Keith Briffa" Dear Keith, There is a substantial deposit cash balance in your ISA which currently stands at £18,350.49.I would like to invest the majority of this to try and take advantage of the setback seen in equity markets in the last 2 or 3 weeks.Also,under the HMRC rules which govern ISAs, we should not hold significant cash balances for long periods. The cash balance has been increased recently by the receipt of the £6,840 take over proceeds of the former holding in Scottish & Newcastle. Taking up the RBS rights issue,as agreed, will account for £4,612 of the deposit balance and I will be writing to you shortly to recommend taking up the HBOS rights issue which,if you agree,will account for a further £203.50 ( your holding in HBOS is a small one ).On this basis,the total rights calls would be £4,815.50 which would leave a cash balance of £13,534.99.I would like to keep a modest balance on deposit to meet our management fees;possible further rights issues calls etc.If £1,534.99 were retained,this would leave £12,000 available for investment. I suggest investing £6,000 into a new holding in JP Morgan Fleming New Europe.The fund invests in companies in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia with particular emphasis on the latter.This Eastern Europe and Russia emerging markets fund has produced good capital growth from a major region of economic development with the unit price rising by 42.5%:185.5% and 351.7% over the last1,3 and 5 year periods.The unit price is 247.3p.The income return is very low with a gross yield of 0.6%. I suggest the balance of £6,000 be split to add £4,000 and £2,000 respectively to the existing holdings in BG Group and Pacific Horizon to increase their values to £9,550 and £5,375.BG Group is the former British Gas and the company is currently achieving record earnings driven by the huge rise in natural gas prices.The company has transformed over the years into an international oil and gas business from its former businesses of production,transmission and distribution of gas in the UK.Pacific Horizon invests in the Asia Pacific economies ( ex the poorly performing economy in Japan ) which continues to be an area of considerable growth potential.The managers have consistently performed well in capital growth terms.The respective shares prices and gross yields are £12.82 and 0.8% and 159p and 0.8% I hope these ideas will be 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 This e-mail message, and any attachment, are intended only for and are confidential to the addressee. Any views expressed in this e-mail message or in any attachment are solely those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc or Brewin Dolphin Limited. 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 intended addressee who acts or refrains from acting on any information in this e-mail message or any attachment. Though our e-mail messages are checked for viruses, we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted by, through, with or in this e-mail message. Recipients are expected to take their own steps to ensure that e-mail messages are checked for, and free from, viruses. Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2685806, is the parent company of Brewin Dolphin Limited. Brewin Dolphin Limited is a member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority No. 124444, regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission for the provision of investment business, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2135876. VAT No. GB-609 8994 69. 28/05/200811:15:19 3969. 2008-05-28 14:54:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 28 14:54:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Press release plus Nature to: David Thompson Dave, Just spoken to Alister Doyle from Reuters. He asked the same question. He also asked the question about billions of investment riding on the global T curve. The second question is typical bullshit. The investment will happen anyway. The hope is that the investors consider climate change. The answer to the first q is the quote I have in the press release. The measuring system wasn't designed for continuity. We are only adjusting where we know the reason. I'll email him. Cheers Phil At 14:20 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: Thanks Phil. I've pointed everyone to the press release, and have chatted with only one person, a guy from the BBC. He seemed very informed and clever. The only point I didn't like was that he kept trying to get me to say what I think the skeptics will think - I kept telling him I don't know, but he obviously wanted more. Anyway, I hope you don't mind that I suggested he could chat with you if needed. His name and email are: Richard Black, [1]richard.black@bbc.co.uk -Dave On May 28, 2008, at 2:16 PM, Phil Jones wrote: Dave, I'm just back from taking our Chinese visitors to the N. Norfolk coast. Can you get them to email "Bartman Cat Ms \(MAC\)" <[2]C.Bartman@uea.ac.uk> The press release won't be up till 6pm today Cheers Phil At 13:27 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: All, I've been getting a lot of emails from journalists, and I'd like to point them to either the UEA or Met Office press releases. Is there a way I can do this? Thanks, Dave On May 27, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Gromett, Barry wrote: All I have made no further changes to the attached release and from a Met Office PR point of view Im perfectly happy with the content. Could you please let me know today if you have any significant objection to this being issued tomorrow (Wednesday 28 May). I know this is a popular week for holiday in the UK but if you are available to reply please do. If you have any specific notes to editors you would like included, please copy me relevant text, many thanks. Regards Barry Gromett ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 May 2008 12:12 To: Britton, Dave; David Thompson; Kennedy, John Cc: Mike Wallace; Smith, Fiona Subject: RE: Press release plus Nature Dave(s), Accepted the changes. Have added the back the 'word' also, as this aspect is a relatively minor point as far as the paper is concerned. I'm happy with this now. Hope all are happy with their quotes. I think these address a lot of the issues, and will provide good reporters the chance to follow up with us. We should be able to close this out fairly soon. Cheers Phil At 11:32 23/05/2008, Britton, Dave wrote: All, I have made some further changes. Please take a look at reply with further comments. Nature will be issuing there embargoed release either today or yesterday. Cheers Dave Dave Britton Chief Press Officer Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 884629 Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880687 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail:[4] dave.britton@metoffice.gov.uk [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Thompson [ [7]mailto:davet@atmos.colostate.edu] Sent: 23 May 2008 10:43 To: Kennedy, John; Britton, Dave Cc: Phil Jones; Mike Wallace Subject: Re: Press release plus Nature All, Sorry I didn't get back to you yesterday; I'm on travel and didn't have email access. Here are my edits on the press release. I took John's most recent version, and changed my quote to clarify John's role in identifying the cause of the drop. Please look at the quotes and let me know if they are OK. CSU is bugging me for some text, so I'm going to forward this version to them. I chatted with Quirin the other day, but in doing so realized reporters - even those from Nature - are going to feel a lot of pressure to sensationalize the result. Quirin assured me he wouldn't, but we'll see. I'm also going to echo the press release in any interviews. I'll let you know if I hear anything from Nature. -Dave Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [9]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 [10]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [11]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1249. 2008-05-28 17:13:35 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \" date: Wed May 28 17:13:35 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Although requests (1) and (2) are for the IPCC, so irrelevant to UEA, Keith (or you Dave) could say that for (1) Keith didn't get any additional comments in the drafts other than those supplied by IPCC. On (2) Keith should say that he didn't get any papers through the IPCC process.either. I was doing a different chapter from Keith and I didn't get any. What we did get were papers sent to us directly - so not through IPCC, asking us to refer to them in the IPCC chapters. If only Holland knew how the process really worked!! Every faculty member in ENV and all the post docs and most PhDs do, but seemingly not Holland. So the answers to both (1) and (2) should be directed to IPCC, but Keith should say that he didn't get anything extra that wasn't in the IPCC comments. As for (3) Tim has asked Caspar, but Caspar is one of the worse responders to emails known. I doubt either he emailed Keith or Keith emailed him related to IPCC. I think this will be quite easy to respond to once Keith is back. From looking at these questions and the Climate Audit web site, this all relates to two papers in the journal Climatic Change. I know how Keith and Tim got access to these papers and it was nothing to do with IPCC. Cheers Phil At 23:47 27/05/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear Dave, re. David Holland's follow-up requests... These follow-up questions appear directed more towards Keith than to me. But Keith may be unavailable for a few days due to family illness, so I'll attempt a brief response in case Keith doesn't get a chance to. Items (1) and (2) concern requests that were made by the IPCC Technical Support Unit (hosted by UCAR in the USA) and any responses would have been sent direct to the IPCC Technical Support Unit, to the email address specified in the quote included in item (2). These requests are, therefore, irrelevant to UEA. Item (3): we'll send the same enquiry to Ammann as we sent to our other colleagues, and let you know his response. Item (3) also asks for emails from "the journal Climatic Change that discuss any matters in relation to the IPCC assessment process". I can confirm that I have not received any such emails or other documents. I expect that a similar answer will hold for Keith, since I cannot imagine that the editor of a journal would be contacting us about the IPCC process. Best wishes Tim On Tue, May 27, 2008 6:30 pm, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > Gents, > Please note the response received today from Mr. Holland. Could you > provide input as to his additional questions 1, and 2, and check with > Mr. Ammann in question 3 as to whether he believes his correspondence > with us to be confidential? > > Although I fear/anticipate the response, I believe that I should inform > the requester that his request will be over the appropriate limit and > ask him to limit it - the ICO Guidance states: > > 12. If an authority estimates that complying with a request will exceed > the cost limit, can advice and assistance be offered with a view to the > applicant refocusing the request? > > In such cases the authority is not obliged to comply with the request > and will issue a refusal notice. Included within the notice (which must > state the reason for refusing the request, provide details of complaints > procedure, and contain particulars of section 50 rights) could be advice > and assistance relating to the > > refocusing of the request, together with an indication of the > information that would be available within the cost limit (as required > by the Access Code). > > This should not preclude other 'verbal' contact with the applicant, > whereby the authority can ascertain the requirements of the applicant, > and the normal customer service standards that the authority usually > adopts. > > > And... our own Code of Practice states (Annex C, point 5) > > 5. Where the UEA is not obliged to supply the information requested > because the cost of doing so would exceed the "appropriate limit" (i.e. > cost threshold), and where the UEA is not prepared to meet the > additional costs itself, it should nevertheless provide an indication of > what information could be provided within the cost ceiling. > > This is based on the Lord Chancellors Code of Practice which contains a > virtually identical provision.... > > In effect, we have to help the requester phrase the request in such a > way as to bring it within the appropriate limit - if the requester > disregards that advice, then we don't provide the information and allow > them to proceed as they wish.... > > I just wish to ensure that we do as much as possible 'by the book' in > this instance as I am certain that this will end up in an appeal, with > the statutory potential to end up with the ICO. > > Cheers, Dave > > ________________________________ > > From: David Holland [[1]mailto:d.holland@theiet.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:37 PM > To: David Palmer > Subject: Your Ref: FOI_08-23 - IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment > Process > > > Please find attached a response to your letter of 19th May 2008 > > David Holland > > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4040. 2008-05-28 17:21:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed May 28 17:21:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Global and Planetary Change - redux to: John Milliman , Katie Farnsworth , kxu@vims.edu, Larry Smith John, Thanks, The attached will be in tomorrow's Nature. There is also a News and View piece which I've yet to see. It is embargoed till 1300 EDT, so 40 minutes from now! Why this got in without the adjustment is a bit surprising. Once adjusted correctly we will need less sulphate cooling to explain the 20th century changes. Also the last sentence means that we are currently underestimating global temperatures - by about 0.1 deg C since the early 2000s. All down to a measurement system that is not designed to measure climate - see the press release. Cheers Phil At 17:06 28/05/2008, John Milliman wrote: Phil has a particularly nice way in pointing out that I forgot to attach the pdf. So....attached is the pdf. John Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1059. 2008-05-28 17:25:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: santer1@llnl.gov, "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Frank Wentz date: Wed May 28 17:25:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: David Douglass to: Tom Wigley , Steven Sherwood Ben et al, Definitely the right response - so agree with Tom. I have been known to disagree with him, and he's not always right. Submit asap !! Cheers Phil At 23:48 27/05/2008, Tom Wigley wrote: Steve et al., Sorry, but I agree with quick submission, but not with giving anything to Douglass until the paper appears in print. I guess the reason John likes 1.2 is because it agrees best with UAH MSU -- which, as we all know, has been inspired by and blessed by God, and so MUST be right. Tom. +++++++++++++ Steven Sherwood wrote: Hi Ben, I for one am happy with submission pronto, leaving to your discretion the comments I sent earlier. I wouldn't feel too threatened by the likes of Douglass. This paper will likely be accepted as is upon resubmission, given the reviews, so why not just send him a copy too once it is ready and final. On a related note I've heard from John Christy who stated his opposition to the new Allen+Sherwood article/method (who would've thought). He argues that Leo's v1.2 dataset is the "best" version because the later ones are contaminated by artifacts in ERA-40 due to Pinatubo. This argument made no sense to me on several levels (one of which: Pinatubo erupted almost exactly in the middle of the time period of interest, thus should have no impact on any linear trend). But there it is. SS On May 27, 2008, at 5:41 PM, Ben Santer wrote: Dear folks, I just wanted to alert you to an issue that has arisen in the last few days. As you probably know, a paper by Robert Allen and Steve Sherwood was published last week in "Nature Geoscience". Peter Thorne was asked to asked to write a "News and Views" piece on the Allen and Sherwood paper. Peter's commentary on Allen and Sherwood briefly referenced our joint International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. Peter discussed this with me about a month ago, and I saw no problem with including a reference to our IJoC paper. The reference in Peter's "News and Views" contribution is very general, and gives absolutely no information on the substance of our IJoC paper. At the time Peter I discussed this issue, I had high hopes that our IJoC manuscript would now be very close to publication. I saw no reason why publication of Peter's "News and Views" piece should cause us any concern. Now, however, it is obvious that David Douglass has read the "News and Views" piece and wants a copy of our IJoC paper in advance of its publication - in fact, before a final editorial decision on the paper has been reached. Dr. Douglass has written to me and to Peter, requesting a copy of our IJoC paper. In his letter to Peter, Dr. Douglass has claimed that failure to provide him (Douglass) with a copy of our IJoC paper would contravene the ethics policies of the journal "Nature". As you can see from my reply to Dr. Douglass, I feel strongly that we should not give him an advance copy of our paper. However, I think we should resubmit our revised manuscript to IJoC as soon as possible. The sooner we receive a final editorial decision on our paper, the less likely that it is that Dr. Douglass will be able to cause problems. With your permission, therefore, I'd like to resubmit our revised manuscript by no later than close of business tomorrow. I've incorporated most of the suggested changes I've received from you in the past few days. My personal feeling is that we've now reached the point of diminishing returns, and that's it's more important to get the manuscript resubmitted than to engage in further iterations about relatively minor details. I will circulate a final version of the revised paper and the response to the reviewers later this evening. Please let me know if resubmission by C.O.B. tomorrow is not acceptable to you. 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 <[1]mailto:santer1@llnl.gov> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Steven Sherwood Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu <[2]mailto:Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu> Yale University ph: 203 432-3167 P. O. Box 208109 fax: 203 432-3134 New Haven, CT 06520-8109 [3]http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3145. 2008-05-28 19:17:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:17:32 -0700 from: Climatic Change subject: Kobashi MS 3987 Review Request from Dr. Stephen Schneider for to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Dr. Jones, The paper indicated below has been submitted for possible publication in Climatic Change, and 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 Climatic Change. TOPIC: Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millenium BY: Kobashi, T. Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Regards, Adam Schneider, Editorial Assistant, Climatic Change Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CC_Reviewer_Guidelines.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\KobashiClimaticChange.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\figall.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\climaticchange.vcf" 5211. 2008-05-28 20:46:53 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:46:53 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Our d3* test to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , "'Susan Solomon'" , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, Just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC. After some discussions that I've had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne, I applied our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests to synthetic data, in much the same way that we applied the DCPS07 d* test and our original "paired trends" test (d) to synthetic data. The results are shown in the appended Figure. Relative to the DCPS07 d* test, our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests of hypothesis H2 yield rejection rates that are substantially closer to theoretical expectations (compare the appended Figure with Figure 5 in our manuscript). As expected, all three tests show a dependence on N (the number of synthetic time series), with rejection rates decreasing to near-asymptotic values as N increases. This is because the estimate of the model-average signal (which appears in the numerator of d1*, d2*, and d3*) has a dependence on N, as does the estimate of s{}, the inter-model standard deviation of trends (which appears in the denominator of d2* and d3*). The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of d3*. This is the test which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating. As you can see, d3* produces rejection rates that are consistently LOWER (by a factor of two or more) than theoretical expectations. We do not wish to be accused by Douglass et al. of devising a test that makes it very difficult to reject hypothesis H2, even when there is a significant difference between the trends in the model average signal and the 'observational signal'. So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers? Were they indeed advocating a d3* test of the form which we used? I will try to clarify this point tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer 2). Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows: d3* = ( b{o} - <> ) / sqrt[ (s{} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ] where b{o} = Observed trend <> = Model average trend s{} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends s{b{o}} = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for autocorrelation effects) In Francis's comments on our paper, the first term under the square root sign is referred to as "an estimate of the variance of that average" (i.e., of <> ). It's possible that Francis was referring to sigma{SE}, which IS an estimate of the variance of <>. If one replaces s{} with sigma{SE} in the equation for d3*, the performance of the d3* test with synthetic data is (at least for large values of N) very close to theoretical expectations. It's actually even closer to theoretical expectations than the d2* test shown in the appended Figure (which is already pretty close). I'll produce the "revised d3*" plot tomorrow... The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact form of the test he was requesting. The "new" d3* (with sigma{SE} as the first term under the square root sign) would lead to a simpler interpretation of the problems with the DCPS07 test. It would show that the primary error in DCPS07 was in the neglect of the observational uncertainty term. It would also simplify interpretation of the results from Section 6. I'm sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is an important point, and I'd like to understand it fully. I'm still hopeful that we'll be able to submit the paper in the next few days. Many thanks to Tom and Peter for persuading me to pay attention to this issue. It often took a lot of persuasion... 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\FINAL_IJC_figure05b.pdf" 1014. 2008-05-29 08:12:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: IPCC & FOI to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true. I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@yahoo.com talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > >> Mike, > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? > Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. > > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't > have his new email address. > > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. > > I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature > paper!! > > 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 4045. 2008-05-29 08:15:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:15:30 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: [Fwd: AGU Fellowship] to: Phil Jones Phil--this gets back to something we discussed this some time ago. Are you an AGU fellow already? If not, I think we should nominate you! mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AGU Fellowship Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:53:24 -0400 From: Leadership [1] To: [2]mann@psu.edu The American Geophysical Union invites nominations for the election of members to the rank of Fellow. Each year, about 100 nominations reach the Fellows Committee through the AGU Sections and about half are elected. The number of Fellows is limited to at most .1% of the membership, which makes this honor very prestigious. The Union Fellows are distinguished scientists who have made important contributions to one or several fields of geophysical sciences. While such people often are at high positions at universities or institutions, the selection committee feels very strongly that the scientific merits are the most important criterion for fellowship. More than 35% of members are outside of the US. At present these are underrepresented among the Fellows of AGU. Please consider suitable candidates amongst your colleagues and to make nominations following the instructions available at: [3]http://www.agu.org/inside/fellguides.html. Tuija Pulkkinen AGU Fellows 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: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 5121. 2008-05-29 09:18:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:18:30 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: [Fwd: AGU Fellowship] to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, will go ahead and get this started. I'll let you know if I need any further info from you, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, No I'm not. I am an AMS one, but I think that is a little easier - a higher %age of AMS members become fellows than for AGU. So go ahead and nominate me ! Here is my full CV. I just updates this with the Nature paper and also a paper in GPC which is also good. As for RC I suspect you may want to do something on the Chinese urban paper just accepted in JGR. When I get proofs I'll email that. One other thing. I got this message from W-C Wang yesterday am. So he has been exonerated, as expected. I bet that Keenan doesn't change his web site when he hears. Wei Chyung is now off to Taiwan for a few weeks. I'll be seeing Tom Karl - maybe we can come up with something to do. Not sure what though.. Cheers Phil Hi, Tom and Phil, I finally got the SUNYA committee report concerning the allegation, the statement from the report, "..finds no evidence of the alleged fabrication of results and nothing that rises to the level of research misconduct having been committed by Dr. Wang" Now, the University wants to know what we would like them to do to restore "our" reputation. Please get back to me as soon as possible, I am leaving for Taiwan 5/29^th for a Bilateral Workshop on exchanges in Atmospheric Sciences between National Taiwan University and SUNYA, which I have been coordinating in the past year or so. wcw ************************************* Dr. Wei-Chyung Wang Professor of Applied Sciences Atmospheric Sciences Research Center State University of New York 251 Fuller Road Albany, New York 12203 Tel: 518-437-8708 (O) Fax: 518-437-8713 (O) E-mail: [1]wang@climate.cestm.albany.edu [2]http://asrc.albany.edu/people/faculty/wang/wang.html ************************************** At 13:15 29/05/2008, you wrote: Phil--this gets back to something we discussed this some time ago. Are you an AGU fellow already? If not, I think we should nominate you! mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: AGU Fellowship Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:53:24 -0400 From: Leadership [3] To: [4]mann@psu.edu The American Geophysical Union invites nominations for the election of members to the rank of Fellow. Each year, about 100 nominations reach the Fellows Committee through the AGU Sections and about half are elected. The number of Fellows is limited to at most .1% of the membership, which makes this honor very prestigious. The Union Fellows are distinguished scientists who have made important contributions to one or several fields of geophysical sciences. While such people often are at high positions at universities or institutions, the selection committee feels very strongly that the scientific merits are the most important criterion for fellowship. More than 35% of members are outside of the US. At present these are underrepresented among the Fellows of AGU. Please consider suitable candidates amongst your colleagues and to make nominations following the instructions available at: [5] http://www.agu.org/inside/fellguides.html. Tuija Pulkkinen AGU Fellows 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: [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 3440. 2008-05-29 09:27:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ben Santer , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , "'Susan Solomon'" , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Phil Jones , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , Carl Mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steve Sherwood , Frank Wentz date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:27:20 +0100 from: Peter Thorne subject: Re: Our d3* test to: Tom Wigley One more addendum: We still need to be aware that this ignores two sources of uncertainty that will exist in the real world that are not included in Section 6 which is effectively 1 perfect obs and finite number of runs of a perfect model: 1. Imperfect models 2. Observational uncertainty related to dataset construction choices (parametric and structural) Of course, with the test construct given #1 becomes moot as this is the thing we are testing for with H2. This is definitely not the case for #2 which will be important and is poorly constrained. For Amplification factors we are either blessed or cursed by the wealth of independent estimates of the observational record. One approach, that I would advocate here because I'm lazy / because its more intuitive* (*=delete as appropriate) is that we can take the obs error term outside the explicit uncertainty calculation by making comparisons to each dataset in turn. However, the alternative approach would be to take the range of dataset estimates, make the necessary poor-mans assumption that this is the 1 sigma or 2 sigma range depending upon how far you think they span the range of possible answers and then incorporate this as an extra term in the denominator to d3. As with the other two it would be orthogonal error so still SQRT of sum of squares. Such an approach would have advantages in terms of universal applicability to other problems where we may have less independent observational estimates, but a drawback in terms of what we should then be using as our observational yardstick in testing H2 (the mean of all estimates, the median, something else?). Anyway, just a methodological quirk that logically follows if we are worried about ensuring universal applicability of approach which with the increasingly frequent use of CMIP3 archive for these types of applications is something we maybe should be considering. I don't expect us to spend very much time, if any, on this issue as I agree that key is submitting ASAP. Peter On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 21:58 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote: > Dear all, > > Just to add a bit to Ben's notes. The conceptual problem is how to > account for two different types of uncertainty in comparing a single > observed trend (with temporal uncertainty) with the average of a > bunch of model trends (where the uncertainty is from inter-model > differences). The "old" d3 tried to do this, but failed the synthetic > data test. The new d3 does this a different way (in the way that the > inter-model uncertainty term is quantified). This passes the synthetic > data test very well. > > The new d3 test differs from DCSP07 only in that it includes in the > denominator of the test statistic an observed noise term. This is by > far the bigger of the two denominator terms. Ignoring it is very > wrong, and this is why the DCSP07 method fails the synthetic data > test. > > Tom. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Ben Santer wrote: > > Dear folks, > > > > Just wanted to let you know that I did not submit our paper to IJoC. > > After some discussions that I've had with Tom Wigley and Peter Thorne, I > > applied our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests to synthetic data, in much the same > > way that we applied the DCPS07 d* test and our original "paired trends" > > test (d) to synthetic data. The results are shown in the appended Figure. > > > > Relative to the DCPS07 d* test, our d1*, d2*, and d3* tests of > > hypothesis H2 yield rejection rates that are substantially > > closer to theoretical expectations (compare the appended Figure with > > Figure 5 in our manuscript). As expected, all three tests show a > > dependence on N (the number of synthetic time series), with rejection > > rates decreasing to near-asymptotic values as N increases. This is > > because the estimate of the model-average signal (which appears in the > > numerator of d1*, d2*, and d3*) has a dependence on N, as does the > > estimate of s{}, the inter-model standard deviation of trends > > (which appears in the denominator of d2* and d3*). > > > > The worrying thing about the appended Figure is the behavior of d3*. > > This is the test which we thought Reviewers 1 and 2 were advocating. As > > you can see, d3* produces rejection rates that are consistently LOWER > > (by a factor of two or more) than theoretical expectations. We do not > > wish to be accused by Douglass et al. of devising a test that makes it > > very difficult to reject hypothesis H2, even when there is a significant > > difference between the trends in the model average signal and the > > 'observational signal'. > > > > So the question is, did we misinterpret the intentions of the Reviewers? > > Were they indeed advocating a d3* test of the form which we used? I will > > try to clarify this point tomorrow with Francis Zwiers (our Reviewer 2). > > > > Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows: > > > > d3* = ( b{o} - <> ) / sqrt[ (s{} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ] > > > > where > > > > b{o} = Observed trend > > <> = Model average trend > > s{} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends > > s{b{o}} = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for > > autocorrelation effects) > > > > In Francis's comments on our paper, the first term under the square root > > sign is referred to as "an estimate of the variance of that average" > > (i.e., of <> ). It's possible that Francis was referring to > > sigma{SE}, which IS an estimate of the variance of <>. If one > > replaces s{} with sigma{SE} in the equation for d3*, the > > performance of the d3* test with synthetic data is (at least for large > > values of N) very close to theoretical expectations. It's actually even > > closer to theoretical expectations than the d2* test shown in the > > appended Figure (which is already pretty close). I'll produce the > > "revised d3*" plot tomorrow... > > > > The bottom line here is that we need to clarify with Francis the exact > > form of the test he was requesting. The "new" d3* (with sigma{SE} as the > > first term under the square root sign) would lead to a simpler > > interpretation of the problems with the DCPS07 test. It would show that > > the primary error in DCPS07 was in the neglect of the observational > > uncertainty term. It would also simplify interpretation of the results > > from Section 6. > > > > I'm sorry about the delay in submission of our manuscript, but this is > > an important point, and I'd like to understand it fully. I'm still > > hopeful that we'll be able to submit the paper in the next few days. > > Many thanks to Tom and Peter for persuading me to pay attention to this > > issue. It often took a lot of persuasion... > > > > 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 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Peter Thorne Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 886552 fax +44 1392 885681 www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs 1031. 2008-05-29 11:04:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: IPCC & FOI to: "Michael E. Mann" Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2051. 2008-05-29 11:43:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Stefan Rahmstorf date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:43:02 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: Gavin Schmidt , Phil Jones we also need to debunk the notion that McIntyre in any way figured this out on his own. What is the date of the first talk that was given publicly about this? we can assume that McIntyre could have learned about what Phil et al were doing on this as early as then. It would be good to have the timeline to demontrate the falsehood of his claim to have independently discovered this. m Michael Mann wrote: yes--some sort of urgent reply seems essential here. it was probably a mistake to publish this w/out at least some initial estimate of the actual extent of the corrections. Phil--is there any way to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation on the correction? Otherwise,McIntyre's ridiculous figure, is going to spread like wildfire--you can be sure that all of the usual, right-wing outlets will be promoting this as evidence that our knowledge is deeply flawed. also, note that there is no consideration of the buoy problem (which increases the recent warming) here. we need to do something quick, mike Gavin Schmidt wrote: If there is an wildly inappropriate exaggeration to be made, you know who will make it: [1]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_ipccs_main.ht ml Phil, I suggest that you (as in HadISST/CRU) will need to have a better estimate of the adjustment necessary available soon otherwise this is going to spread. "Nature" abhors a vaccuum.... Gavin On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:48, Michael Mann wrote: p.s. Phil--here's an antidote to the Canada Free [w/ its facts] Press article, also just out: [2]http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/348 feel free to distribute far and wide! mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Gavin, OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. I'll expect Nature will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed till the middle of next week. Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume numbers. Also attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK except for the last paragraph which we're still working on. There will also be a News and Views item from Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I don't have either of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to Dave and John. It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper. I hope to get these later two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. We have a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out jointly from the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when. Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which alludes to the probable underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now measuring SSTs dominate by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to 0.2 deg C cooler than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. I hope Dick will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST that people use to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs are in decline - lots of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations of the ships kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might want to talk to Scott Woodruff more about this. A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized and these will be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years as well as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these require bucket corrections. My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up to 0.3 deg C for the SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have concentrated on the South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books. [3]http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/ and click on SST to see some comparisons. The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later 1940s logs have also been digitized. There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they have done about half of those not already done. If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those in the S. Atlantic/indian oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in 1939/40. Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the major parts, so this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across the Pacific to Seattle and then back into the fray. ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log books. Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed this! If you want me to look through anything then email me. I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese temps and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you a copy when I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 paper and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this in a few weeks if you hear nothing. Cheers Phil PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea Flower Show - the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it affects gardening. Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never stopped for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. She met the environment minister. She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The minister (Phil Woolas) seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the plants to extract CO2 from the atmosphere! He'd also not heard of the UHI! Still lots of education needed. PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I'd never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is. [4]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make sure that the right message is emphasized. thanks in advance for any help! 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: [5]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [6]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 [7]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: [8]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [9]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: [10]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [11]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: [12]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [13]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 2865. 2008-05-29 14:12:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 May 2008 14:12:33 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: China urban-rural anomaly series (latest version) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I have repeated the operations of yesterday. The new version (the rural component of which is based on a max. of 39 series) of the urban minus rural anomaly series is in your pigeon hole. I think that the urban subset is unchanged from that used in the paper. Cheers David 611. 2008-05-29 14:22:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: , John Kennedy , David Parker date: Thu May 29 14:22:58 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Sea water temperatures from the Honourable Company of Master to: "Pdo" Phil, I'm cc'ing my brief answer to two people at the Met Office, in case they want to add anything. It is good to hear from people who have taken the sorts of observations we use! As you'll be aware there is a lot more to the issue than we were able to say in the Nature article (and in their own News and Views piece). The real problem with all the marine data is that before about 1970 we do not know how individual ships measured SST (buckets or intakes - and the different variants of both). So we've had to make assumptions about which fleets (maritime and naval) used which types of buckets and which types of intake measurements and hull sensors. The number of observations per 'square' of the ocean does beat down the noise associated with individual readings. There are parts of the oceans where this doesn't (the Southern Oceans for example) and periods (the two WWs). In the two WW periods there are markedly fewer observations from fewer fleets and countries. We have a naval historian selecting British log books for additional digitization for the two WW periods and the few years either side as well as the nineteenth century. There are many more British log books than any other nation and we've only digitized a small percentage of them Effort is being focussed on areas and periods where overall the number of observations are fewest. The situation will improve but digitizing isn't cheap and takes time. The number of observations will improve, but I don't think this will change the big picture. There is the issue recently when the number of ships taking obs has reduced, partly due to commercial considerations. We have a lot more automated observations now from drifters and buoys, but these need replacement every few years. If you can help in any way to slow down or stop the decline in commercial ships taking weather observations then I'm sure David Parker can put you in touch with people in Southampton. Thanks for your interest in the paper. Phil At 11:30 29/05/2008, Pdo wrote: Dear Professor Jones I have just read with great interest the reporting of your work on sea water temperatures. However, am a little confused by what has been reported. Firstly the canvas bucket v sea water intake differences. We were always taught by the met office that only surface temperatures should be taken using the bucket just dipped into the sea. The design of the bucket greatly reduced colling through evaporation as it was double skinned. The sea water intake is by definition below the waterline. This must remain below the waterline at all stages of loading. So if you take a ship with a lightship draught of 2m its sea water intake will be just below the surface. If you now load that ship, the intake is now some 10m below the surface. This must throw up an enormous variation in readings. Secondly, the UK register after 1945 greatly increased to its heyday in the 1970s before declining again. During this time the number of reports from UK ships must have grown vastly, dwarfing the number of US sources. This must then through up some variation in temperature reading methods post say the mid 50s. Thirdly, as a former navigator I remember how hit and miss the whole method was. Chucking this bucket over the side, pulling it back in (trying not to hit the side of the ship and wake the Captain), peering at the thermometer with a weak torch in the middle of a gale, spilling most of the water, making up readings, copying what others had written before (as it was dark, blowing a hooley and you couldn't be bothered to go onto the bridge wing). And I was a pretty conscientious officer. The met reports from the observing ships is pretty dubious at times. I remember crossing the Atlantic one time and could not understand why there was this isolated fog bank following us across as indicated on the weather fax. Then checked the visibility codes for our reports and found that we had all just been copying the wrong number down. Would be interested to hear some thoughts about the above issues though. BR Phil ------------------------------------------------- Dr Phillip Belcher Professional Development Officer Honourable Company of Master Mariners HQS "Wellington" London WC2R 2PN Tel 020 7836 8179 Tel 029 2021 7699 E-mail pdo@hcmm.org.uk [1]www.hcmm.org.uk Sea's the Future [2]www.worldmaritimeday.com ___________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer This message (including any attachments) are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you should not disclose, copy or use any part of it - please delete all copies immediately and reply that you have received this misdirected email. The company accepts no responsibility for changes to this message after it was sent nor any loss or damage arising from its receipt or use. The company reserves the right to monitor e-mails and any replies, also all statements expressed in this email are personal to the sender and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the company. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1762. 2008-05-29 15:32:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 29 May 2008 15:32:00 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: Urgent request to release former 'LINK' project funding to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk More on R02618 LINK. Clare >Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:57:22 +0100 >To: c.vincent@uea.ac.uk >From: Clare Goodess >Subject: Urgent request to release former 'LINK' project funding >Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk > >Dear Chris > >I was recently contacted by Andrew Dlugolecki (who is a Visiting CRU >Research Fellow and expert on impacts of climate change on the >insurance industry) concerning the production of a climate change >report by the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). > >This is the third in a series of major and influential CII climate >reports. Jean Palutikof contributed to the first report, while David >Viner and Maureen Agnew wrote a chapter for the 2001 report. Andrew >contacted CRU in spring 2006 about contributing to the update, due >to be published July 2007 - and David Viner enthusiastically agreed >to write a chapter - on the understanding that no salary money was >available, only some travel money for project meetings. > >According to Andrew's email to me, he received a very rough draft >from David in November, on which he provided a number of comments >and suggestions for further topics to be addressed. Unfortunately, >he heard nothing more from David and only discovered he was leaving >on receiving an 'out of office' message from David. At which point >he contacted me to find out what was happening. I asked Andrew to >send me the draft chapter and other background material. We reviewed >this in CRU Board, and reluctantly had to admit that none of us had >the time over the next couple of months to take this on fully - >though Phil, Tim and I all thought we could/would find a little time >for editing/reviewing etc. > >At this point, we thought of Maureen Agnew - who had written the >2001 chapter with David, and who we had interviewed for a CRU >position on a new EU project (ECOCHANGE) on 30 March. Maureen did >not get this position - it went to Dimitrios Efthymiadis, who left >CRU last year and has more suitable expertise for this particular >post. Maureen is currently working on a project with Ian Lake and >her contract expires at the end of April, so she is currently on the >redundancy register. She will, however, be a strong candidate for a >position that I will be advertising, as soon as we have the >necessary contract details (another EU project - CIRCE). The draft >job description and advert for this post are currently with Janice. > >Andrew would be happy for Maureen to produce the chapter - which has >to be done by the end of May. And Maureen is also very agreeable to >this. Phil and I would be involved in an editorial/review capacity. > >This only leaves the issue of Maureen's salary. Which is where we >thought of David Viners salary money which has been recharged from >the LINK project (R02618) as a contribution to his teaching. Phil >has already discussed with you, releasing some of this money to >cover a couple of months of David Lister's salary - and this has >been agreed. There should also be sufficient money to cover >Maureen's salary for a month - particularly as she is currently >working part-time (60%). Clearly we need your approval to release >this money - somewhat urgently as Maureen's contract expires at the >end of the month and the report needs to be written in May. > >We are sorry to have to approach you like this. But we have been >left in a very difficult position. Our proposed solution does have >the advantages of providing Maureen with another months money and >CRU/ENV/UEA will be fully acknowledged in the CII report - which >should like the earlier reports be widely distributed and well received. > >I'm also sorry for a rather long and detailed email, but hope that >I've managed to explain the facts clearly. Please let us know if you >have any questions or would like more information. Phil and I are >travelling to meetings much of the next two or three weeks, but >should have email contact (and can let you have mobile numbers if >necessary). I will, however, be in CRU 23 and 24 April. > >Best wishes, Clare 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 3823. 2008-05-29 17:15:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 29 May 2008 17:15:45 +0800 (CST) from: subject: Fwd: data for 59626 to: d.lister@uea.ac.uk Dear Dave, I noticed that the plots you provide uses only about 25 stations, which is I sent to you. I had thought that you had the rest ones. I am very sorry for that. >From attach please find the dataset of about 42 urban stations and 43 rural stations. Maybe this time you can get the plots of all the urban/rural sations and we can see the UHI effect from their differences. Cheers Qingxiang Received: (from rays.cma.gov.cn [139.222.104.29]) by rays.cma.gov.cn (MOS 3.8.5-GA) with HTTP/1.1 id ANB20692 (AUTH liqx); Tue, 27 May 2008 19:20:13 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 19:20:13 +0800 (CST) From: Subject: data for 59626 To: d.lister@uea.ac.uk X-Mailer: Mirapoint Webmail Direct 3.8.5-GA MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 59626 2132 10758 1952 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 311 -9999 268 -9999 59626 2132 10758 1953 177 181 230 -9999 295 311 326 325 303 303 254 216 59626 2132 10758 1954 210 211 207 261 299 308 320 314 314 281 270 185 59626 2132 10758 1955 174 214 231 253 301 307 310 297 311 292 245 230 59626 2132 10758 1956 183 191 222 266 295 302 310 307 320 296 245 208 59626 2132 10758 1957 200 149 203 256 294 295 309 320 316 275 250 221 59626 2132 10758 1958 174 181 235 273 309 305 307 310 307 284 258 237 59626 2132 10758 1959 175 201 216 273 289 308 307 305 -9999 -9999 -9999 -9999 59626 2132 10758 1960 -9999 -9999 -9999 248 290 322 295 317 301 279 248 212 59626 2132 10758 1961 190 187 227 267 299 309 316 310 309 291 258 210 59626 2132 10758 1962 179 211 220 250 301 303 314 310 314 284 241 222 59626 2132 10758 1963 196 188 222 259 299 315 303 311 316 281 255 219 59626 2132 10758 1964 186 166 219 271 299 299 310 309 307 286 254 213 59626 2132 10758 1965 207 207 218 261 291 294 309 310 308 284 259 199 59626 2132 10758 1966 203 214 232 273 290 294 308 309 317 283 251 204 59626 2132 10758 1967 172 164 221 253 304 314 318 311 296 278 247 174 59626 2132 10758 1968 195 134 208 238 288 297 315 308 311 280 253 250 59626 2132 10758 1969 193 174 207 255 303 306 311 306 318 285 234 214 59626 2132 10758 1970 173 209 187 248 292 304 308 309 301 284 242 205 59626 2132 10758 1971 178 181 219 267 293 305 309 291 306 268 254 214 59626 2132 10758 1972 198 181 228 241 294 308 314 296 305 281 242 203 59626 2132 10758 1973 181 232 251 273 297 301 305 306 296 276 250 216 59626 2132 10758 1974 188 181 201 253 303 307 299 308 303 282 255 206 59626 2132 10758 1975 188 200 229 265 297 301 308 315 310 281 236 187 59626 2132 10758 1976 203 200 212 240 294 296 310 303 302 278 220 211 59626 2132 10758 1977 146 176 236 261 313 316 309 318 311 289 249 231 59626 2132 10758 1978 190 185 220 263 292 311 317 313 304 283 241 228 59626 2132 10758 1979 194 219 214 250 290 301 320 307 304 300 253 233 59626 2132 10758 1980 190 167 242 264 295 306 308 316 317 295 281 212 59626 2132 10758 1981 194 196 233 282 284 311 307 323 314 280 233 208 59626 2132 10758 1982 204 174 220 250 287 306 315 307 303 295 256 199 59626 2132 10758 1983 172 171 200 262 299 318 322 320 312 287 255 202 59626 2132 10758 1984 162 155 211 263 286 311 312 321 311 284 269 192 59626 2132 10758 1985 158 183 174 236 301 322 310 311 310 297 249 211 59626 2132 10758 1986 196 171 218 263 293 304 310 325 318 284 248 217 59626 2132 10758 1987 212 228 251 261 304 311 320 314 313 292 239 217 59626 2132 10758 1988 197 170 186 244 304 316 315 298 315 274 249 226 59626 2132 10758 1989 166 182 203 252 288 306 317 319 316 288 255 212 59626 2132 10758 1990 177 184 213 257 287 312 308 333 320 290 257 227 59626 2132 10758 1991 186 205 240 263 295 307 310 317 330 297 252 222 59626 2132 10758 1992 182 182 215 263 292 306 307 330 317 287 243 231 59626 2132 10758 1993 177 211 217 247 292 317 316 315 317 287 255 211 59626 2132 10758 1994 197 200 202 277 305 307 300 310 306 282 268 226 59626 2132 10758 1995 173 175 212 262 300 307 307 300 316 292 240 211 59626 2132 10758 1996 178 186 216 228 292 307 315 307 311 298 267 217 59626 2132 10758 1997 201 186 221 267 295 307 302 320 291 297 260 207 59626 2132 10758 1998 187 206 227 286 307 311 313 320 322 307 275 236 59626 2132 10758 1999 192 222 235 278 285 316 320 307 320 293 251 207 59626 2132 10758 2000 197 176 217 273 298 307 322 320 307 287 252 237 59626 2132 10758 2001 192 192 228 260 300 307 312 322 315 292 256 202 59626 2132 10758 2002 199 201 236 281 301 305 321 313 307 283 239 205 59626 2132 10758 2003 195 219 229 273 307 314 320 317 314 296 268 218 59626 2132 10758 2004 186 197 213 269 293 317 305 320 313 294 263 221 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\urban_rural.rar" 4107. 2008-05-30 08:48:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt , Stefan Rahmstorf date: Fri May 30 08:48:01 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Thompson et al paper] to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Gavin, Stefan, Too much on to get involved with this much further. [1]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against-climate-change-disc redited-by-study-835856.html This is roughly what an adjustment would look like. The newspaper drew this from a brief discussion with me. It will likely be less than this later in the 1950s. I expect little adjustment after about 1955, with the maximum of about 0.2 in the period from Aug 45 to about 1950, then reducing to near zero in about 1955. As for a timeline, the first time Dave Thompson contacted me was 8 Nov 2007. McIntyre has been talking about the SSTs for a while - back to 2005, but he makes all the wrong assumptions. He seems at last to have realized that the SST is potentially the weakest part of the global T record - only because it dominates area-wise and you have to make assumptions about the types of buckets/intakes and hull sensors and then the mixes between the main two types buckets/intakes. He and Pielke Jr make the wrong assumption about the buckets after WW2 as well. The buckets used then were double insulated and some made of rubber so they don't have the large adjustments needed for canvas buckets from the 1930s earlier. The other aspect which he's not realized is that adjusted SST has to agree approximately with the MAT or the NMAT. There is work going on at the Southampton Oceanography centre to try and use the daytime MAT, to increase the sample numbers, and also to address the greater diurnal range issues with MAT (sampling issues) as opposed to the very much smaller diurnal range in SST. All this needs to be done without consideration of the land record. Remember the land isn't going to change. The SST adjustment needed in Aug 45 is a maximum of 0.3, so only 0.2 in the global combined, and it will diminish to zero by 1960 at the latest and to all intents and purposes by 1955. The News and Views item was good, but it gets confused at the end with the early 1940s mentioned as being too warm. Maybe this will get reduced when the 200,000 extra British SSTs have been added into ICOADS. ICOADS hopes to eventually do an obs by obs adjustment. By the way you can reproduce what Dave Thompson did with the tropical Pacific SST record, by using a 36-month smoothed record of the SOI. As you say - the most important point in all this is they have missed the point about SSTs now - at least since 2000. Dick Reynolds reckons this is about 0.1 deg C now. The issues with both the 1945-55 and 2000- periods is that the adjustments have to be made spatially and seasonally, when they are done. Bottom line in all this is that a smoothed land record is the robust feature in all this. Cheers Phil At 22:03 29/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, Let us know if you think you might be disposed towards doing an RC guest article on this within the next week dealing w/ the various issues here. Gavin and I could certainly help. thanks in advance for getting back to us when you have the chance, mike -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Thompson et al paper Date: 29 May 2008 16:28:04 -0400 From: Gavin Schmidt [2] To: Michael E. Mann [3] References: [4]<48347423.4010409@meteo.psu.edu> [5]<200805220828.m4M8Sh85467134@tr10n05.aset.psu.edu> [6]<4835B1EF.2080404@meteo.psu.edu> [7]<1212073337.7985.2391.camel@isotope.giss.nasa.gov> [8]<483F1131.6020207@meteo.psu.edu> yes. The pielke plot is completely bogus - first off he is correcting all data (not just ocean), is assuming that the bucket correction is uniformly spread, ignores the fact that the '90%' number that McIntyre came up with is just a statement about what is in the ICOADS meta-data (most temperature measurements are listed as unknown) not what is actually known about the fleets (i.e. US ships are all intakes whether it is listed specifically or not), etc.... This is better said coming from Phil though. The figure here: [9]http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/453601a-f1.2.jpg should indicate that the UK effect is only likely to affect 1945-1955 - after that the mass of other data is going to be dominant. Gavin On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 16:25, Michael Mann wrote: > > It occurs to me that the McIntyre/Pielke argument (and supporting plot > )most be completely bogus for one obvious reason. NH land temperature > is completely unimpacted by this whole issue, and it has risen more > dramatically than SST in recent decades. So if the downward > correction were really so substantial, it would imply a completely > unphysical increase in the land-ocean SST contrast in recent decades, > no? > > m > > Gavin Schmidt wrote: > > If there is an wildly inappropriate exaggeration to be made, you know > > who will make it: > > > > [10]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_ipccs_ma in.html > > > > Phil, I suggest that you (as in HadISST/CRU) will need to have a better > > estimate of the adjustment necessary available soon otherwise this is > > going to spread. "Nature" abhors a vaccuum.... > > > > Gavin > > > > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:48, Michael Mann wrote: > > > > > p.s. Phil--here's an antidote to the Canada Free [w/ its facts] Press > > > article, also just out: > > > [11]http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/348 > > > > > > feel free to distribute far and wide! > > > > > > mike > > > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > > Mike, Gavin, > > > > OK - as long as you're not critical and remember the embargo. > > > > I'll expect Nature > > > > will be sending the paper around later today to the press embargoed > > > > till the middle > > > > of next week. > > > > Attached is the pdf. This is the final one bar page and volume > > > > numbers. Also > > > > attached is our latest draft press release. This is likely OK > > > > except for the last paragraph > > > > which we're still working on. There will also be a News and Views > > > > item from > > > > Dick Reynolds and a Nature news piece from Quirin Schiermeier. I > > > > don't have either > > > > of these. I did speak to Quirin on Tuesday and he's also spoke to > > > > Dave and John. > > > > It took me a while to explain the significance of the paper. I > > > > hope to get these later > > > > two items before I might have to do any interviews early next week. > > > > We have > > > > a bank holiday on Monday in the UK. The press release will go out > > > > jointly from > > > > the Met Office and UEA - not sure exactly when. > > > > Potentially the key issue is the final Nature sentence which > > > > alludes to the probable > > > > underestimation of SSTs in the last few years. Drifters now > > > > measuring SSTs dominate > > > > by over 2 to 1 cf ships. Drifters likely measure SSTs about 0.1 to > > > > 0.2 deg C cooler > > > > than ships, so we could be underestimating SSTs and hence global T. > > > > I hope Dick > > > > will discuss this more. It also means that the 1961-90 average SST > > > > that people use > > > > to force/couple with models is slightly too warm. Ship-based SSTs > > > > are in decline - lots > > > > of issues related to the shipping companies wanting the locations > > > > of the ships > > > > kept secret, also some minor issues of piracy as well. You might > > > > want to talk to Scott Woodruff > > > > more about this. > > > > A bit of background. Loads more UK WW2 logs have been digitized > > > > and these will > > > > be going or have gone into ICOADS. These logs cover the WW2 years > > > > as well > > > > as the late 1940s up to about 1950. It seems that all of these > > > > require bucket corrections. > > > > My guess will be that the period from 1945-49 will get raised by up > > > > to 0.3 deg C for the > > > > SSTs, so about 0.2 for the combined. In digitizing they have > > > > concentrated on the > > > > South Atlantic/Indian Ocean log books. > > > > > > > > [12]http://brohan.org/hadobs/digitised_obs/docs/ and click on SST to > > > > see some comparisons. > > > > The periods mentioned here don't seem quite right as more later > > > > 1940s logs have also been > > > > digitized. There are more log books to digitize for WW2 - they > > > > have done about half of those > > > > not already done. > > > > > > > > If anyone wonders where all the RN ships came from, many of those > > > > in the S. Atlantic/indian > > > > oceans were originally US ships. The UK got these through the > > > > Churchill/Roosevelt deal in 1939/40. > > > > Occasionally some ships needed repairs and the UK didn't have the > > > > major parts, so > > > > this will explain the voyages of a few south of OZ and NZ across > > > > the Pacific to Seattle > > > > and then back into the fray. > > > > > > > > ICOADS are looking into a project to adjust/correct all their log > > > > books. > > > > > > > > Also attaching a ppt from Scott Woodruff. Scott knows who signed > > > > this! > > > > > > > > If you want me to look through anything then email me. > > > > > > > > I have another paper just accepted in JGR coming out on Chinese > > > > temps > > > > and urbanization. This will also likely cause a stir. I'll send you > > > > a copy when > > > > I get the proofs from AGU. Some of the paper relates to the 1990 > > > > paper > > > > and the fraud allegation against Wei-Chyung Wang. Remind me on this > > > > in > > > > a few weeks if you hear nothing. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > PS CRU/Tyndall won a silver medal for our garden at the Chelsea > > > > Flower Show - > > > > the theme of the show this year was the changing climate and how it > > > > affects gardening. > > > > Clare Goodess was at the garden on Tuesday. She said she never > > > > stopped > > > > for her 4 hour stint of talking to the public - only one skeptic. > > > > She met the environment minister. > > > > She was talking about the high and low emissions garden. The > > > > minister (Phil Woolas) > > > > seemed to think that the emissions related to the ability of the > > > > plants to extract > > > > CO2 from the atmosphere! He'd also not heard of the UHI! Still > > > > lots of education > > > > needed. > > > > > > > > PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage - so wrong it is > > > > unbelievable that > > > > Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes > > > > wish I'd never > > > > said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex > > > > von Storch just > > > > shows how up to date he is. > > > > > > > > [13]http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3151 > > > > > > > > > > > > At 20:12 21/05/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > > > Gavin and I have been discussing, we think it will be important > > > > > for us to do something on the Thompson et al paper as soon as it > > > > > appears, since its likely that naysayers are going to do their > > > > > best to put a contrarian slant on this in the blogosphere. > > > > > > > > > > Would you mind giving us an advance copy. We promise to fully > > > > > respect Nature's embargo (i.e., we wouldn't post any article until > > > > > the paper goes public) and we don't expect to in any way be > > > > > critical of the paper. We simply want to do our best to help make > > > > > sure that the right message is emphasized. > > > > > > > > > > thanks in advance for any help! > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > > > > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > > > > University of East Anglia > > > > Norwich Email [16]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: [17]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [18]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 810. 2008-05-30 09:10:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:10:12 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Thompson et al paper] to: Phil Jones thanks Phil, well, we'll just ignore him. Attention is what he craves, best that we not give feed that. I don't think he'll get as must traction as we first feared, as the Independent graph discredits the argument he/Pielke are trying to make. I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause, or her professional credibility, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Gavin, [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3116#comments So CA have seen the Independent also. McIntyre's comment about bilge is bilge itself. Some of the other comments on this thread are quite amusing - never did think much of a publication in Nature!!! (It has with Science the highest Impact Factor) - how do people choose the journal they will send their research to! - the suggestion that CA should become a journal that people can reference!!! - the suggestion that McIntyre should write his research up for publication! We've seen what this leads to! What is Judith Curry up to talking to this lot? 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 2688. 2008-05-30 10:14:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: "keith Briffa" , p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:14:46 -0600 from: Caspar Ammann subject: Re: request for your emails to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, in response to your inquiry about my take on the confidentiality of my email communications with you, Keith or Phil, I have to say that the intent of these emails is to reply or communicate with the individuals on the distribution list, and they are not intended for general 'publication'. If I would consider my texts to potentially get wider dissemination then I would probably have written them in a different style. Having said that, as far as I can remember (and I haven't checked in the records, if they even still exist) I have never written an explicit statement on these messages that would label them strictly confidential. Not sure if this is of any help, but it seems to me that it reflects our standard way of interaction in the scientific community. Caspar On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote: Dear Caspar, I hope everything's fine with you. Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC assessment process. We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or that we retained any that you may have sent. However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you sent to us as confidential. Sorry to bother you with this, Tim (cc Keith & Phil) 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 839. 2008-05-30 10:15:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:15:58 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: mikequestion to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I wrote the editor I needed time to think about this, did a thorough reread, made 1 tough and a few friendly comments on the things I thought author really did need to change, took a deep breath and signed it. Mike got back to me right away and was very friendly about it (of course cant hear what he says behind my back:) and had suspected somebody else! thanks for your advice on this! Gabi Phil Jones wrote: > > Gabi, > I think this is par for the course. See what Tom thinks. Tom can > probably write you a good response letter to the editor saying that > the author hasn't taken any of my comments into account. It seems > that the point of a review .... is pointless. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:34 21/05/2008, you wrote: >> Hi Phil, just looking at Mikes responses to my review of the PNAS >> paper - is it normal for Mike >> to just pretty much tell the reviewer reviewer is clueless, or >> possibly I really am clueless? >> :) >> cheers, next IDAG meeting timing coming tomorrow or friday >> >> 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 >> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 3379. 2008-05-30 11:13:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri May 30 11:13:11 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: paper to: John Kennedy John, Apologies for another email. The ppt looks good. It is important to get this sort of work written up fairly quickly. I know it takes time and there are a lot of issues, and you want to get it right first time (the 45-60 stuff and the recent) and also add in as many of the extra logbooks as well. The awful stuff on CA and also Roger Pielke's diagram will get some airtime on the blog sites and some will use it for political purposes, but the truth will win out in the end. When you do all this you will preseumbly have a new version (say HadSST3). Perhaps after that we should consider doing another Brohan et al. - and hence HadCRUT4. We will have added in a lot of new Chinese station data as a result] of the visitors you'll be seeing next week. A lot of extra station series for other regions are going in as well. I think there is more we can do on the urban part of the bias adjustments. All a long way off... Cheers Phil At 09:52 30/05/2008, you wrote: Dear all, That climateaudit thing is awful and one might hope that Roger Pielke would have had more sense than to put any faith in their 'corrections'. I've attached the talk I gave at the CLIMAR workshop which shows how far we've got with our estimated corrections. With Phil's guidance, The Independent was pretty close: under his own steam, Steve McIntyre was. John On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 09:06 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > Dave, John, Mike, > It does get a little worse when you look at the blog sites! > > [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > > [2]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_i pccs_main.html > > You've likely met Roger Pielke Jr. They have taken the adjustments > too far, far too far! > > I did talk to the Independent and they tried to produce the effect > of likely adjustments. > > [3]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against- > climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html > > This is probably too much, but it's much nearer than Pielke. I > expect this to disappear earlier - or > to a negligible amount by 1955. > > We'll need to do the adjustments - spatially and seasonally, for > both the 45-60 period > and also the post 2000. The skeptics seem to have a mind block on the > latter. It may be > smaller than 0.1, but it could be important spatially and seasonally. > I reckon they forget > the recent past and say the land record must be affected and the > satellites are right, but > then they always go for UAH. They have a fixation on this dataset and > seem blind > to the RSS one. > > A lot of work is going on with Sonde adjustments, using thermal > winds etc. All > seem to indicate that RSS is likely better, but you have to remember > that this is LT > and not the surface. > > Mike has been through all this before with an Academy Report and > then there is the > CCSP report. > > I'm not sure much will be gained by telling Nature their reporter > isn't that good. The N&V > article did confuse the issue with the early 1940s a little. > Hopefully the new load of > digitized SSTs for the whole of the 1940s will help resolve things > better. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 20:54 29/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: > > Phil, > > > > Hopefully the NY Times article is reasonable. > > > > I indulged in 10 minutes of surfing some wacky right wing blog this > > morning which is linked via the crummy Nature news piece (some guy > > called McIntyre ranting about how he'd figured this all out before > > and that our paper highlights how corrupt we all are). Anyway, it's > > a surreal site and makes me feel sorry with what you and, say, Susan > > must have to deal with on a regular basis. My instinct is to blow it > > off. But what bugs me is that the link is prominently available > > below the Nature news article. > > > > Do you think it's worth telling the editor (who I liked) that their > > news article is factually wrong and that it's subsequent blog seems > > overly vitriolic for a peer-reviewed journals main page? Or do you > > suggest I just let it go. > > > > -Dave > > > > > > On May 29, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > The Nature news item is a bit of a curate's egg - good in > > > parts, but very poor in some. > > > I guess it didn't help moving Fort Collins to Boulder and getting > > > the name wrong didn't > > > help. > > > I've just spoken to Henry Fountain at the NYT. I gave him some > > > interesting > > > historical snippets and I hope he will also call Scott Woodruff. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 22:03 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Well the News and Views article is very nice and clear... I like > > > > how it clarifies the non-impact on century-long trends. But the > > > > Nature reporter's news story is really crappy. I'm surprised > > > > they hired such a sensationalizing hack. I'm tempted to tell the > > > > editor he makes them look bad. > > > > -Dave > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > David W. J. Thompson > > > > [4]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > David W. J. Thompson > > [5]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [7]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5214. 2008-05-30 11:25:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:25:07 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: [Fwd: Re: My "retirement"] to: Phil Jones Phil, FYI. Tom Wigley is officially retiring June 20. We will have a low key celebration for him on Aug 14. I am not expecting you to come but you may want to organize some tribute from UEA CRU, and if you have any comments you'd like me to make on your behalf, I would gladly do that. Cheers Kevin -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: My "retirement" Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 10:45:29 -0600 From: Kevin Trenberth [1] To: Bill Large [2] CC: Tom Wigley [3], Lisa Butler [4] References: [5]<4840012A.5020106@ucar.edu> [6]<48400A3F.3090906@ucar.edu> [7]<48401158.5040905@ucar.edu> [8]<4840133D.8070305@ucar.edu> Bill I have discussed this now with Tom and the decision is to request from CGD some funds to support an "afternoon tea" on Aug 14 to celebrate Tom's career and retirement (even though he will continue working). Lisa will provide a budget in due course. Thanks Kevin - -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [9]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [10]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 201. 2008-05-30 12:58:34 ______________________________________________________ cc: "keith Briffa" ,p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:58:34 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: request for your emails to: Caspar Ammann Hi again Caspar, I don't think it is necessary for you to dig through any emails you may have sent us to determine your answer. Our question is a more general one, which is whether you generally consider emails that you sent us to have been sent in confidence. If you do, then we will use this as a reason to decline the request. Cheers Tim At 00:36 28/05/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote: >Oh MAN! will this crap ever end?? > >Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a >chance digging through emails. I don't recall from the top of my >head any specifics about IPCC. > >I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did >an outstanding job and the IPCC report certainly reflects that >science and literature in an accurate and balanced way. > >So long, >Caspar > > > > >On May 27, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Tim Osborn wrote: > >>Dear Caspar, >> >>I hope everything's fine with you. >> >>Our university has received a request, under the UK Freedom of Information >>law, from someone called David Holland for emails or other documents that >>you may have sent to us that discuss any matters related to the IPCC >>assessment process. >> >>We are not sure what our university's response will be, nor have we even >>checked whether you sent us emails that relate to the IPCC assessment or >>that we retained any that you may have sent. >> >>However, it would be useful to know your opinion on this matter. In >>particular, we would like to know whether you consider any emails that you >>sent to us as confidential. >> >>Sorry to bother you with this, >> >>Tim (cc Keith & Phil) >> > >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 > > 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 2535. 2008-05-30 13:10:44 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:10:44 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Dear Dave, I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with specific reference to the public interest section. Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? Best regards Tim At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the 'appropriate >limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In particular, your >input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence >received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. > >This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about right of appeal >are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. > >Cheers, Dave > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn > >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > > > >Hi Dave > >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my letter over > >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send > >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I > >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is unreasonable - > >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter 6 authors > >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is > >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into > >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely > >compliance with further , less demanding requests. > >cheers > >Keirth > > > >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, > >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) > >> > >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? > >> > >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. > >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was going to make > >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something > >along the lines > >>of .... > >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your > >letter of 31 > >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request > >under this > >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" > >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the requester is not > >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the > >question... Your > >>opinions? > >> > >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly > >> > >>Cheers, Dave > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM > >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn > >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >> >Subject: > >> > > >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil > >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful > >comments and on > >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to > >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you , I intend > >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to Holland tomorrow > >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments > >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By > >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that > >I did not > >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not believe that this > >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting process in any > >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence will not be > >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. > >> >thanks again > >> >Keith > >> > > >> >-- > >> >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/ > > > > > 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 3743. 2008-05-30 14:24:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt , Phil Jones date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:24:45 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: Thompson et al paper to: mann@psu.edu Friends, of course Roger Pielke's A-D logical choices are also wrong. Isn't he a mathematician by training, so if he doesn't understand climate physics, he at least should understand some logic? I could come to the conclusion "most is anthropogenic" even if I don't know whether the actual warming has been 0.3 or 0.9 ºC say, e.g. on the basis of amplitude-independent fingerprint studies, or the fact that natural forcings tend toward cooling, etc. - and given the factor 3 uncertainty in climate sensitivity. Concluding "most" is anthropogenic expressly does not state how much that would be in ºC, as Roger tries to frame it. Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.org 3618. 2008-05-30 15:38:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: John Kennedy , Mike Wallace date: Fri May 30 15:38:38 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: paper to: David Thompson Dave, That's the spirit - get on with the next paper and forget all this wacky stuff. The skeptics won't be interested in the second paper. You should notice in a year or two that the Nature paper will have a fair few citations. The skeptics will move on to something else, in their fly by night nature. John will be involved in getting the adjustments done - not just for the 1945 problem but with the more important recent stuff. I see that CA have found my rough adjustment in The Independent. They say this is bilge, but they still haven't realized there are different types of buckets. Have a good weekend! Cheers Phil At 14:57 30/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: All, Thanks for keeping me in the loop. The blog stuff is wacky; I'm hoping it will die down pretty soon. I've never really bothered to read those things before... maybe I should have.... The writers are certainly bullying, and misleading ... I complained to Nature - I just had to. We agonized over every word and their reporter was sloppy with the facts. They have said they will do something. We'll see. The Independent story seems reasonable. My hope is that the NY Times article is level headed and helps set the record straight. I've been working on our next paper a lot in recent weeks .... it will certainly be more fun to disseminate. I think we'll be able to provide some novel observational evidence of 1) the importance of ocean/land coupling in global-mean temperature variability and 2) the key role of the Pacific. It will be nice to do a paper, with the same authors, which has a more positive overall message. Thinking forward to the next paper makes me feel less depressed about the misinformation going on... -Dave On May 30, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Phil Jones wrote: John, Thanks. I think my intuition about how much and for how long the adjustments will need to be done comes a little bit from experience and talking to David and Liz the week after the Polish meeting when they were in Holland. Cheers Phil At 09:52 30/05/2008, John Kennedy wrote: Dear all, That climateaudit thing is awful and one might hope that Roger Pielke would have had more sense than to put any faith in their 'corrections'. I've attached the talk I gave at the CLIMAR workshop which shows how far we've got with our estimated corrections. With Phil's guidance, The Independent was pretty close: under his own steam, Steve McIntyre was. John On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 09:06 +0100, Phil Jones wrote: > > Dave, John, Mike, > It does get a little worse when you look at the blog sites! > > [1]http://www.climateaudit.org/ > > > [2]http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001445does_the_i pccs_main.html > > You've likely met Roger Pielke Jr. They have taken the adjustments > too far, far too far! > > I did talk to the Independent and they tried to produce the effect > of likely adjustments. > > [3]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/case-against- > climate-change-discredited-by-study-835856.html > > This is probably too much, but it's much nearer than Pielke. I > expect this to disappear earlier - or > to a negligible amount by 1955. > > We'll need to do the adjustments - spatially and seasonally, for > both the 45-60 period > and also the post 2000. The skeptics seem to have a mind block on the > latter. It may be > smaller than 0.1, but it could be important spatially and seasonally. > I reckon they forget > the recent past and say the land record must be affected and the > satellites are right, but > then they always go for UAH. They have a fixation on this dataset and > seem blind > to the RSS one. > > A lot of work is going on with Sonde adjustments, using thermal > winds etc. All > seem to indicate that RSS is likely better, but you have to remember > that this is LT > and not the surface. > > Mike has been through all this before with an Academy Report and > then there is the > CCSP report. > > I'm not sure much will be gained by telling Nature their reporter > isn't that good. The N&V > article did confuse the issue with the early 1940s a little. > Hopefully the new load of > digitized SSTs for the whole of the 1940s will help resolve things > better. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 20:54 29/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: > > Phil, > > > > Hopefully the NY Times article is reasonable. > > > > I indulged in 10 minutes of surfing some wacky right wing blog this > > morning which is linked via the crummy Nature news piece (some guy > > called McIntyre ranting about how he'd figured this all out before > > and that our paper highlights how corrupt we all are). Anyway, it's > > a surreal site and makes me feel sorry with what you and, say, Susan > > must have to deal with on a regular basis. My instinct is to blow it > > off. But what bugs me is that the link is prominently available > > below the Nature news article. > > > > Do you think it's worth telling the editor (who I liked) that their > > news article is factually wrong and that it's subsequent blog seems > > overly vitriolic for a peer-reviewed journals main page? Or do you > > suggest I just let it go. > > > > -Dave > > > > > > On May 29, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > The Nature news item is a bit of a curate's egg - good in > > > parts, but very poor in some. > > > I guess it didn't help moving Fort Collins to Boulder and getting > > > the name wrong didn't > > > help. > > > I've just spoken to Henry Fountain at the NYT. I gave him some > > > interesting > > > historical snippets and I hope he will also call Scott Woodruff. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > At 22:03 28/05/2008, David Thompson wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Well the News and Views article is very nice and clear... I like > > > > how it clarifies the non-impact on century-long trends. But the > > > > Nature reporter's news story is really crappy. I'm surprised > > > > they hired such a sensationalizing hack. I'm tempted to tell the > > > > editor he makes them look bad. > > > > -Dave > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > David W. J. Thompson > > > > [4]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 [5]p.jones@uea.ac.uk > > > NR4 7TJ > > > UK > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > David W. J. Thompson > > [6]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 [7]p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- John Kennedy Climate Monitoring and Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB Tel: +44 (0)1392 885105 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: [8]john.kennedy@metoffice.gov.uk [9]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk Global climate data sets are available from [10]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 [11]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [12]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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3043. 2008-05-30 15:56:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 30 May 2008 15:56:07 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Next version of paper and response to Reviewers to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, Here is the next version of our IJoC paper, together with the Supporting Online Material and the detailed response to the comments of Reviewers 1 and 2. There is one small issue I'd like to discuss. As I mentioned in a previous email, I have now applied the "new" d1* test suggested by Francis [see equation (12) in the revised manuscript] to synthetic data. Results are shown in Figure 5B. I've also applied the "new" d1* test to observed and simulated T2 and T2LT data (see Table 3 in revised manuscript). I have not yet applied the new d1* to the modelled and observed surface-minus-T2LT difference series. The d1* results in Table 6 are the OLD d1* results - not the new d1* results. In practice, because the first term under the square root sign in equation (12) is small relative to the second term, the new d1* results are very similar to the old d1* results (which only involved the standard error of the observed trend in the denominator). So the "old" d1* results currently shown in Table 6 will probably not change by much when I complete the "new" d1* tests with the modelled and observed surface-minus-T2LT difference series. I should have those calculations completed on Monday morning, and will revise Table 6 then. I'd very much like to resubmit our manuscript on Tuesday of next week, so that I can enjoy my birthday untroubled by thoughts of sigma{SE}, further sensitivity tests, etc. Please let me know if you think Tuesday is an unrealistic target for resubmission. We owe Francis a big debt of gratitude. I think that his review comments (and his help over the past few days) have led to substantial improvements in our 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_maintext_30may08.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_Supporting_30may08.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_etal_IJoC_Response_30may08.pdf" 5229. 2008-05-30 16:40:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dáithí Stone , Phil Jones , Peter Stott , Toru Nozawa , Alexey Karpechko , Michael Wehner date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:40:37 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Revised polar attribution paper to: Nathan Gillett Hi all, nature geoscience seems like a good choice to me, and the paper reads very well. Similar to Alexey I am a bit ambiguous about showing results with SAM subtracted only, given it makes it a little bit harder to interpret. On the other hand, this is not an issue if discussed that results are not sensitive to subtracting the SAM, but that this addresses the concern if SAM related trends are wellr epresented in the models Also, the SAM subtracted pattern is very impressive and could be emphasized a bit more. I am also wondering why Arctic results are so jiggly with detection completely lost for a number of cases with lots of EOFs - do we have any idea why this is happening? writing suggestions: Abstract could mention that temperature trends over Antarctica have been reported as mixed, raising the question if Antarctica is not warming as predicted which would have huge importance on longterm sea level rise prospects. or so (is this too speculative?) p. 2 middle, should this explicitly mention that West Antarctica is still not covered due to hostile conditions? p. 3 first para: 5-yr average spatial means to avoid two means in short sequence? bottom 2nd line same page, exclusion of these data?? p 4 discussion of simulations: the anthro could be easily (kind of) be extended with scenarios, right, its the natural that give us trouble after 1999? p 5 top, add? 'residual observed trends show warming everywhere except..pole. THis makes them more similar to the model residual trends than the raw trends (see supplementary figure 1).' I am wondering if there is any way to quantify this, for example, by plotting your sectorial mean data model and obs raw and subtracted as a line plot, or by plotting zonal means with the peninsula separated as an extra point? This would also possibly strengthen the case... on p 6, bottom paragraph, I would also add at the end of the ANtarctica discussion that ...available and that circulation changes, which were largely antrhopgenic (citeyourpaper) have reduced warming rates over parts of Antarctica in models and observations in the past' does ch10 say something about futur, I think consistent warming is expected in future? (the time intensive approach would be to get the data for the future anthro runs and plot a bit into the future as well which might make this paper hotter for nature but I admit it does sound like work....) Gabi Nathan Gillett wrote: > Hi all, > Please find attached a revised version of the polar attribution paper, > and supplementary info. In response to your earlier comments and > suggestions, I've made the following changes: > > - I now subsample the monthly model data at observed locations, rather > than doing the sampling on 5-yr means. > - I mask the model data with its land mask, before applying the > analysis, so that I'm comparing observed land temperatures with > simulated land temperatures (except in the case of cells in which the > model has no land, but observations exist, in which case I take the > mean over the whole cell). > - I've applied the D&A analysis to the SAM-residual temperature > changes (see supplementary info). > - I haven't applied the analysis to data to the present, because the > data doesn't seem to be available yet. > > Subsampling the monthly model data makes the attribution analysis > slightly less robust to variations in truncation, but we can still > detect ANT. Applying the analysis to the SAM residual makes it easier > to detect ANT in the Antarctic. > > I'm inclined to submit this to Nature Geosciences, partly since it's > new and makes a change from GRL, and partly since I won't have to > reformat it to submit there... Let me know if you disagree. Comments > welcome - it would be good to get this resubmitted soon. > > Cheers, > > Nathan > > > -- 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 322. 2008-05-31 11:42:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 31 May 2008 11:42:14 -0400 from: Mike MacCracken subject: New Nature paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil--According to news accounts, very interesting result in your new Nature paper. Being retired, I don't have direct access and wonder if you could send a copy along. I just finished a review paper on climate change science, etc.--basically a summary across the IPCC WG I and II assessments, and in it, as it allowed some personal reflections, I took issue with whether the obs during the years of WW II had had all the biases removed yet--not thinking there might be a problem just after the war years. What has struck me is how different an impression one gets of the 20th century change if one puts one's finger over the war year results--just seems very suspicious, and my recollection is that you are already making some pretty large adjustments over that period to things like nighttime marine air temperature (due to more measurements being near the wheelhouse instead of at the bow of the ship, etc.). I think it is also interesting that in the regional results on attribution in the new IPCC report (so figure SPM.4, for example), the only region and time that the observations are outside the model band is apparently during the war years for the global ocean (North America and South America during that period are also a bit problematic). Your new result will help a bit, but not seem to resolve that problem, so I guess I am wondering if there is work continuing on looking at the observations for that period? What it seems to me really needs to be done (though hard with limited data) is to extend the reanalyses back to before WW II--and then figuring out if the patterns look consistent, etc. with later patterns. On this issue of the sulfates, only the very newest inventories are trying to differentiate between surface and elevated SO2 emissions--even though this makes a very large difference in atmospheric lifetimes. I have done a bit of looking at the net forcing for GHGs and aerosols over time and it is interesting how the sulfates offset (considering both direct and indirect influences) the GHGs until the early 1970s or so--then the GHG effect takes off. All the movement to elevated SO2 emissions was done to reduce pollution, and it makes me wonder if the Chinese and Indians might soon go to the solutions the US and Europe used in the 1930s-60s---namely, filter out the particles and loft the SO2 (leading to a lot of sulfate). This would seem to mean that for a few decades we may get a growing sulfate offset to the forcing (so little temperature rise--and perhaps a lessening of political pressure to do something), and then as GHGs climb, wow, what a lot of warming potential. What is troubling is that I have not found any group looking at SO2 emission inventories for China and India and differentiating surface and lofted emissions--our EPA is going to work with them on CO2 emissions, but not SO2, and these really need to be compiled. Best regards, Mike MacCracken 2659. 2008-05-31 19:24:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , mann@psu.edu date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:24:29 -0400 (EDT) from: Gavin Schmidt subject: RE: [Fwd: of buckets and blogs...] Phil - here's the text minus figures and links... It's subject to a little revision, but let me know if there are any factual or emphasis issues that are perhaps misplaced. Thanks Gavin ======== Of buckets and blogs This last week has been an interesting one for observers of how climate change is covered in the media and online. On Wednesday an interesting paper (Thompson et al) was published in Nature, pointing to a clear artifact in the sea surface temperatures in 1945 and associating it with the changing mix of fleets and measurement techniques at the end of World War II. The mainstream media by and large got the story right - puzzling anomaly tracked down, corrections in progress after a little scientific detective work, consequences minor - even though a few headline writers got a little carried away in equating a specific dip in 1945 ocean temperatures with the more gentle 1940s-1970s cooling that is seen in the land measurements. However, some blog commentaries have gone completely overboard on the implications of this study in ways that are very revealing of their underlying biases. The best commentary came from John Nielsen-Gammon's new blog where he described very clearly how the uncertainties in data - both the known unknowns and unknown unknowns - get handled in practice (read this and then come back). Stoat, quite sensibly, suggested that it's a bit early to be expressing an opinion on what it all means. But patience is not one of the blogosphere's virtues and so there was no shortage of people extrapolating wildly to support their pet hobbyhorses. This in itself is not so unusual; despite much advice to the contrary, people (the media and bloggers) tend to weight individual papers that make the news far more highly than the balance of evidence that really underlies assessments like the IPCC. But in this case, the addition of a little knowledge made the usual extravagances a little more scientific-looking and has given it some extra steam. Like almost all historical climate data, ship-board sea surface temperatures (SST) were not collected with long term climate trends in mind. Thus practices varied enormously among ships and fleets and over time. In the 19th Century, simple wooden buckets would be thrown over the side to collect the water (a non-trivial exercise when a ship is moving, as many novice ocean-going researchers will painfully recall). Later on, special canvas buckets were used, and after WWII, insulated 'buckets' became more standard - though these aren't really buckets in the colloquial sense of the word as the photo shows (pay attention to this because it comes up later). The thermodynamic properties of each of these buckets are different and so when blending data sources together to get an estimate of the true anomaly, corrections for these biases are needed. For instance, the canvas buckets give a temperature up to 1C cooler in some circumstances (that depend on season and location) than the modern insulated buckets. Insulated buckets have a slight cool bias compared to temperature measurements that are taken at the inlet for water in the engine room which is the most used method at present. Automated buoys which became more common in recent decades tend to be cooler than the engine intake measures as well. The recent IPCC report had a thorough description of these issues (section 3.B.3) fully acknowledging that these corrections were a work in progress. And that is indeed the case. The collection and digitisation of the ship logbooks is a huge undertaking and continues to add significant amounts of 20th Century and earlier data to the records. This dataset (ICOADS) is continually growing, and the impacts of the bias adjustments are continually being assessed. The biggest transitions in measurements occurred at the beginning of WWII between 1939 and 1941 when the sources of data switched from European fleets to almost exclusively US fleets (and who tended to use engine inlet temperatures rather than canvas buckets). This offset was large and dramatic and was identified more than ten years ago from comparisons of simultaneous measurements of night-time marine air temperatures (NMAT) which did not show such a shift. The experimentally based adjustment to account for the canvas bucket cooling brought the sea surface temperatures much more into line with the NMAT series (Folland and Parker, 1995). (Note that this reduced the 20th Century trends in SST). More recent work (for instance, at this workshop in 2005), has focussed on refining the estimates and incorporating new sources of data. For instance, the 1941 shift in the original corrections, was reduced and pushed back to 1939 with the addition of substantial and dominant amounts of US Merchant Marine data (which mostly used engine inlets temperatures). The version of the data that is currently used in most temperature reconstructions is based on the work of Rayner and colleagues (reported in 2006). In their discussion of remaining issues they state: Using metadata in the ICOADS it is possible to compare the contributions made by different countries to the marine component of the global temperature curve. Different countries give different advice to their observing fleets concerning how best to measure SST. Breaking the data up into separate countries' contributions shows that the assumption made in deriving the original bucket correctionsthat is, that the use of uninsulated buckets ended in January 1942is incorrect. In particular, data gathered by ships recruited by Japan and the Netherlands (not shown) are biased in a way that suggests that these nations were still using uninsulated buckets to obtain SST measurements as late as the 1960s. By contrast, it appears that the United States started the switch to using engine room intake measurements as early as 1920. They go on to mention the modern buoy problems and the continued need to work out bias corrections for changing engine inlet data as well as minor issues related to the modern insulated buckets. For example, the differences in co-located modern bucket and inlet temperatures are around 0.1 deg C: (from John Kennedy). However it is one thing to suspect that biases might remain in a dataset (a sentiment shared by everyone), it is quite another to show that they are really there. The Thompson et al paper does the latter quite effectively by removing variability associated with some known climate modes (including ENSO) and seeing the 1945 anomaly pop out clearly. In doing this in fact, they show that the previous adjustments in the pre-war period were probably ok (though there is substantial additional evidence of that in any case - see the references in Rayner et al, 2006). The Thompson anomaly seems to coincide strongly with the post-war shift back to a mix of US, UK and Dutch ships, implying that post-war bias corrections are indeed required and significant. This conclusion is not much of a surprise to any of the people working on this since they have been saying it in publications and meetings for years. The issue is of course quantifying and validating the corrections, for which the Thompson analysis might prove useful. The use of canvas buckets by the Dutch, Japanese and some UK ships is most likely to blame, and given the mix of national fleets shown above, this will make a noticeable difference in 1945 up to the early 1960s maybe - the details will depend on the seasonal and areal coverage of those sources compared to the dominant US information. The schematic in the Independent is probably a good first guess at what the change will look like (remember that the ocean changes are constrained by the NMAT record shown above). So far, so good. The fun for the blog-watchers is what happened next. What could one do to get the story all wrong? First, you could incorrectly assume that scientists working on this must somehow be unaware of the problems (that is belied by the frequent mention of post WWII issues in workshops and papers since at least 2005, but never mind). Next, you could conflate the 'buckets' used in recent decades (as seen in the graphs in Kent et al 2007's discussion of the ICOADS meta-data) with the buckets in the pre-war period (see photo above). If you do make that mistake however, you can extrapolate to get some rather dramatic (if erroneous) conclusions. For instance, that the effect of the 'corrections' would be to halve the SST trend from the 1970s. Gosh! (The mismatch this would create with the independent NMAT data series should not be mentioned). But there is more! You could take the (incorrect) prescription based on the bucket confusion, apply it to the full global temperatures (land included, hmm) and think that this merits a discussion on whether the whole IPCC edifice had been completely undermined (Answer: no). And it goes on - the bucket confusion was pointed out but the complaint switches to the scandal that it wasn't properly explained. All this shows is wishful thinking overcoming logic. However many times there is a similar rush to judgment that is subsequently showed to be based on nothing, it still adds to the vast array of similar 'evidence' that keeps getting trotted out by by the ill-informed. The excuse that these are just exploratory exercises in what-if thinking wears a little thin when the 'what if' always leads to the same (desired) conclusion. This week's play-by-play was quite revealing on that score. *--------------------------------------------------------------------* | 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 | *--------------------------------------------------------------------* 5017. 2008-06-01 08:33:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , "Rosanne D'Arrigo" , Keith Briffa , Jan Esper , Rob Wilson date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:33:28 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: Trieste complications to: David Frank Hi Dave, I just downloaded your powerpoint presentation from your server and looked at it. Very nice job! It really covers many of the issues regarding proxy uncertainty and tree rings. It is also really important not to let the instrumental people off the hook, especially after that debacle just published on by Thompson et al. in Nature concerning the SST corrections or lack there of. The recent Eos article by Vecchi likewise shows how much uncertainty remains in the instrumental SST fields. So it is increasingly clear to me, as I believe it is to you, that the climate data homogenization methods used can contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the reconstructions even when the proxies are typically assigned pretty much all blame. So while we need to be completely honest about the many large uncertainties in our tree-ring data and reconstructions, the instrumental data mob needs to be equally honest and upfront about how they are contributing significant uncertainty to the reconstructions as well. This is especially important at the lower frequencies, which makes time-scale dependent calibration even more difficult to objectively assess. 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 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM, David Frank wrote: Hi Ed. I guess i view this a bit less critically towards the people who did the corrections. Date: May 29, 2008 6:54:41 AM EDT To: Keith Briffa <[6]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> Cc: Edward Cook <[7]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: Unavoidable cancellation also Hi Keith, I am very sorry to hear about Amy's medical problems. Hopefully, all will go well. Please give her my warmest regards and hope for a speedy recovery. You are of course absolutely right to cancel. The meeting won't be nearly as much fun without you however. I tried calling you about an hour ago. Will try again later. Do you have any powerpoint stuff prepared that you could give me to present? I will probably ask Dave Frank to help out too. I am working on the pc regression bootstrap now for single predictands and screened predictors, with some interesting results coming out. See below plotted in two different ways. The confidence limits are percentiles based on 1000 boostrap replications. I need to put in the much better bias corrected and accelerated BCa limits that explicitly allow for asymmetric confidence intervals, but that is more involved. I also haven't had time to extend it to full OSR yet, but that is more a programming issue than one related to anything theoretical. Ed ? ? ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [8]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On May 29, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Lisa, Kim and Eystein (and Ed) I am very sorry - but I too must cancel at this late time. My daughter Amy has been unexpectedly taken to hospital and is awaiting an operation. At the moment she is fine - but the date of the operation has not been fixed. However, it is likely to be sometime next week. She will then stay in hospital for a few days and if all is well she will need looking after for some weeks. This is happening in Birmingham , where she is currently studying (some 200 miles from our home). I have been there for severakl days and have just returned to try to sort out commitments here in Norwich and abroad butI will need to go there for some period over the next few weeks. I am therefore, forced to cancel my participation in the Trieste CCLIVAR/PAGES meeting and the associated steering Committee meeting. This is completely unavoidable and I very much hoping that Ed Cook or Rosanne D'Arrigo will fill in for me . I know Ed is preparing something and I am happy to try and discuss points with him. This is the first time I have just returned from Birmingham and I will try to speak with Ed by phone today. I am asking my secretary to try to cancel flight tickets but his may be difficult now. Again I am sorry for this trouble - but I am sure you will appreciate my position. Keith At 14:09 28/05/2008, you wrote: Dear ricardo, Thanks so much for your prompt reply, even though we are sorry you cannot make it!!! Hope to have a future opportunity to welcome you to the ICTP.. all the best, Lisa On 28 May 2008, at 14:17, Ricardo Villalba wrote: Dear Lisa, Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I am not able to attend to the Workshop in Trieste. I will send my inputs to Kieth Briffa and other participants regarding high-resolution records in South America. Hope you have a very productive meeting. Best regards, Ricardo  ----- Original Message ----- From: Iannitti Lisa To: [9]ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:15 AM Subject: smr1972- CL Letter - Villalba Dear Dr. Villalba, did you receive the email I previously sent? ï¿1Z2I don't seem to have your accommodation form or any reply from you.. ï¿1Z2If you did sent something, I have never received it..ï¿1Z2 You are on Km Cobb's list of attendees and I was wondering if you will be attending? all the best, Lisa Workshop on 'Reducing and Representing Uncertainites in High-Resolution Proxy Data' June 9 - 11, 2008 ï¿1Z2(tel: +39 040 2240227,ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 fax: +39 040 2240558,ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 e-mail: [10]iannitti@ictp.it) Venue:ï¿1Z2 Adriatico Guesthouse - Kastlerï¿1Z2Lecture Hall activity web page: [11]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ Organizers:ï¿1Z2 K. Cobbï¿1Z2(Georgia Tech), T. Kiefer (PAGES) J. Loughï¿1Z2(AIMS),ï¿1Z2J. Ooverpeckï¿1Z2(U. Arizona),ï¿1Z2S. Tudhopeï¿1Z2(U. Edinburgh),ï¿1Z2F. Kucharskiï¿1Z2(ICTP) ________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Speaker, Please find aï¿1Z2scannedï¿1Z2copy of the official invitation letter for the above-mentioned activity and other relevant attachments, for your official purposes.ï¿1Z2 Please find attached an accommodation form which should be filled in and sent back to us [via e-mail]ï¿1Z2 as confirmation of your attendance and for advance guesthouse booking to (please note that no reservation can be made unless the form is emailed back to us) [however, if you have already returned the form, please disregard this]: ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 [12]iannitti@ictp.it ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 cc.:ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 [13]operations@ictp.it [14]housing@ictp.it As soon as your form is processed by our housing office, confirmation of yourï¿1Z2guesthouse booking will be sent to you by email. For our internal pre-activity purposes (preliminary budget updates, etc.) , we would like to kindly request you to also send us your travel details once fixed. Furthermore,ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2a simple activity web page can be accessed atï¿1Z2 [15]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2& an Agenda page [16]at:ï¿1Z2 [17]http://cdsagenda5.ictp.trieste.it/full_display.php?smr=0&ida=a0718 1 ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2where the programï¿1Z2(once completed)ï¿1Z2and other relevant materials, will be displayed.ï¿1Z2 For this reason, we kindly ask you to send a copy of your final notes (preferably, already in a pdf format or, if not possible, in powerpointï¿1Z2 [to be converted into pdf locally])ï¿1Z2 via e-mail, by the end of May, ï¿1Z2to:ï¿1Z2 ï¿1Z[18]2iannitti@ictp.it ï¿1Z2 ï¿1Z2 ï¿1Z2 to be uploaded on the web for world-wide access.ï¿1Z2 If you do not want them to be uploaded, please specify this in your return email.ï¿1Z2ï¿1Z2 We would also like to compile a CD of the lecturing materials to be handed out [possibly] at the end of the activity to all attendees, if we have the notes in advance or if not, to be mailed out soon afterwards. ï¿1Z2 For your kind reference, Pre-arrival and General Information on the ICTP is also available on the Centre's website atï¿1Z2 [19]http://www.ictp.it/pages/info/visiting.html. ï¿1Z2 Once again, we would like to thank you for having accepted to join this event and for your kind collaboration, and look forward to welcoming you to the ICTP in June.ï¿1Z2 All the best. Lisa Iannitti Secretary-in-charge (on behalf of the Organizers) ******************************************************************************* Lisa Iannitti âS¯"We are not permitted to choose the International Centre for frame of our destiny.... but what we put into Theoretical Physics (ICTP) it, is ours..."  -  Dag HammarskjöldâS¯ of UNESCO and the IAEA Strada Costiera 11 34014 Trieste, Italy tel.: +39 - 040 - 2240227 fax.: +39 - 040 - 2240558 ICTP website: [20]http://www.ictp.it/ Dear Dr. Villalba, did you receive the email I previously sent? I don't seem to have  your accommodation form or any reply from you.. If you did sent  something, I have never received it.. You are on Km Cobb's list of attendees and I was wondering if you  will be attending? all the best, Lisa -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [21]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ Hi Dave, I am forwarding on to you an email I just sent to Keith in response to his unfortunate cancellation of his Trieste trip. As you can tell from his email and my reply, his daughter Amy is ill and Keith needs to be there for her operation. I also just got off the phone talking with Keith. It sounds like Amy will be fine, but the operation probably won't happen until next week. In the meantime, Keith will be sending a few powerpoint slides to me on what he would have talked about, but obviously his cancellation changes things and heaps a lot of what he would talk about on to me. Please bring some presentation stuff with you as well. Maybe we can do a bit of a tag team presentation. The meeting is all rather informal, so it shouldn't be too difficult. Please pass on my regards to Papa Esper! How much sleep has he gotten lately? Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [22]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== Begin forwarded message: From: Edward Cook <[23]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Date: May 29, 2008 6:54:41 AM EDT To: Keith Briffa <[24]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> Cc: Edward Cook <[25]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Re: Unavoidable cancellation also Hi Keith, I am very sorry to hear about Amy's medical problems. Hopefully, all will go well. Please give her my warmest regards and hope for a speedy recovery. You are of course absolutely right to cancel. The meeting won't be nearly as much fun without you however. I tried calling you about an hour ago. Will try again later. Do you have any powerpoint stuff prepared that you could give me to present? I will probably ask Dave Frank to help out too. I am working on the pc regression bootstrap now for single predictands and screened predictors, with some interesting results coming out. See below plotted in two different ways. The confidence limits are percentiles based on 1000 boostrap replications. I need to put in the much better bias corrected and accelerated BCa limits that explicitly allow for asymmetric confidence intervals, but that is more involved. I also haven't had time to extend it to full OSR yet, but that is more a programming issue than one related to anything theoretical. Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [26]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On May 29, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Lisa, Kim and Eystein (and Ed) I am very sorry - but I too must cancel at this late time. My daughter Amy has been unexpectedly taken to hospital and is awaiting an operation. At the moment she is fine - but the date of the operation has not been fixed. However, it is likely to be sometime next week. She will then stay in hospital for a few days and if all is well she will need looking after for some weeks. This is happening in Birmingham , where she is currently studying (some 200 miles from our home). I have been there for severakl days and have just returned to try to sort out commitments here in Norwich and abroad butI will need to go there for some period over the next few weeks. I am therefore, forced to cancel my participation in the Trieste CCLIVAR/PAGES meeting and the associated steering Committee meeting. This is completely unavoidable and I very much hoping that Ed Cook or Rosanne D'Arrigo will fill in for me . I know Ed is preparing something and I am happy to try and discuss points with him. This is the first time I have just returned from Birmingham and I will try to speak with Ed by phone today. I am asking my secretary to try to cancel flight tickets but his may be difficult now. Again I am sorry for this trouble - but I am sure you will appreciate my position. Keith At 14:09 28/05/2008, you wrote: Dear ricardo, Thanks so much for your prompt reply, even though we are sorry you cannot make it!!! Hope to have a future opportunity to welcome you to the ICTP.. all the best, Lisa On 28 May 2008, at 14:17, Ricardo Villalba wrote: Dear Lisa, Thanks for your message. Unfortunately I am not able to attend to the Workshop in Trieste. I will send my inputs to Kieth Briffa and other participants regarding high-resolution records in South America. Hope you have a very productive meeting. Best regards, Ricardo  ----- Original Message ----- From: [27]Iannitti Lisa To: [28]ricardo@lab.cricyt.edu.ar Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 7:15 AM Subject: smr1972- CL Letter - Villalba Dear Dr. Villalba, did you receive the email I previously sent? ï¿SI don't seem to have your accommodation form or any reply from you.. ï¿SIf you did sent something, I have never received it..ï¿S You are on Km Cobb's list of attendees and I was wondering if you will be attending? all the best, Lisa Workshop on 'Reducing and Representing Uncertainites in High-Resolution Proxy Data' June 9 - 11, 2008 ï¿S(tel: +39 040 2240227,ï¿Sï¿S fax: +39 040 2240558,ï¿Sï¿S e-mail: [29]iannitti@ictp.it) Venue:ï¿S Adriatico Guesthouse - Kastlerï¿SLecture Hall activity web page: [30]http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ Organizers:ï¿S K. Cobbï¿S(Georgia Tech), T. Kiefer (PAGES) J. Loughï¿S(AIMS),ï¿SJ. Ooverpeckï¿S(U. Arizona),ï¿SS. Tudhopeï¿S(U. Edinburgh),ï¿SF. Kucharskiï¿S(ICTP) ________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Speaker, Please find aï¿Sscannedï¿Scopy of the official invitation letter for the above-mentioned activity and other relevant attachments, for your official purposes.ï¿S Please find attached an accommodation form which should be filled in and sent back to us [via e-mail]ï¿S as confirmation of your attendance and for advance guesthouse booking to (please note that no reservation can be made unless the form is emailed back to us) [however, if you have already returned the form, please disregard this]: ï¿Sï¿S ï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿S [31]iannitti@ictp.it ï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿Sï¿S cc.:ï¿Sï¿Sï¿S [32]operations@ictp.it [33]housing@ictp.it As soon as your form is processed by our housing office, confirmation of yourï¿Sguesthouse booking will be sent to you by email. For our internal pre-activity purposes (preliminary budget updates, etc.) , we would like to kindly request you to also send us your travel details once fixed. Furthermore,ï¿Sï¿Sa simple activity web page can be accessed atï¿S[34] http://users.ictp.it/~smr1972/ï¿Sï¿S& an Agenda page [35]at:ï¿S[36] http://cdsagenda5.ictp.trieste.it/full_display.php?smr=0&ida=a07181 ï¿Sï¿Swhere the programï¿S(once completed)ï¿Sand other relevant materials, will be displayed.ï¿S For this reason, we kindly ask you to send a copy of your final notes (preferably, already in a pdf format or, if not possible, in powerpointï¿S [to be converted into pdf locally])ï¿S via e-mail, by the end of May, ï¿Sto:ï¿S ï¿S[37]iannitti@ictp.it ï¿S ï¿S ï¿S to be uploaded on the web for world-wide access.ï¿S If you do not want them to be uploaded, please specify this in your return email.ï¿Sï¿S We would also like to compile a CD of the lecturing materials to be handed out [possibly] at the end of the activity to all attendees, if we have the notes in advance or if not, to be mailed out soon afterwards. ï¿S For your kind reference, Pre-arrival and General Information on the ICTP is also available on the Centre's website atï¿S[38] http://www.ictp.it/pages/info/visiting.html. ï¿S Once again, we would like to thank you for having accepted to join this event and for your kind collaboration, and look forward to welcoming you to the ICTP in June.ï¿S All the best. Lisa Iannitti Secretary-in-charge (on behalf of the Organizers) ___________________________________________________________________________________ ******************************************************************************* Lisa Iannitti âS¯"We are not permitted to choose the International Centre for frame of our destiny.... but what we put into Theoretical Physics (ICTP) it, is ours..."  -  Dag HammarskjöldâS¯ of UNESCO and the IAEA Strada Costiera 11 34014 Trieste, Italy tel.: +39 - 040 - 2240227 fax.: +39 - 040 - 2240558 ICTP website: [39]http://www.ictp.it/ ___________________________________________________________________________________ Dear Dr. Villalba, did you receive the email I previously sent? I don't seem to have  your accommodation form or any reply from you.. If you did sent  something, I have never received it.. You are on Km Cobb's list of attendees and I was wondering if you  will be attending? all the best, Lisa -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [40]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 2098. 2008-06-02 07:45:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 07:45:38 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: Palaeoclimate uncertainites to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, Thanks for the forwarded email. Was the graphic from Jonathan as well? An inquiry now. There is a new post-doc in stats at Columbia via New Zealand, Matthew Schofield, who wants to work on using hierarchical Bayes modeling to explicitly quantify reconstruction uncertainty literally from the standardization step all the way to the final reconstruction simultaneously. He wrote a rather horrid paper on this topic, submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, using a terribly simplistic simulation to "prove" that his method was demonstrably better than what we have done in the past. His lack of understanding of what we do came through load and clear. To his credit, Matt contacted me without knowing that I was a reviewer of his paper and we set up a meeting to discuss his work. Manu Lall, my genius colleague here who know hierarchical Bayes very well, came along too. I showed Matt a powerpoint presentation on the whole matter of tree-ring standardization and its impact on climate reconstruction using Tornetrask data over the AD interval as an example. Matt came away with a far better understanding of the issues and the realization (drummed by me into his head) that he needs to work with real tree-ring data to demonstrate his case in a believable manner. So the question I have to you is can I give Matt the Tornetrask data to work with in his hierarchical Bayes modeling? Manu and I would work directly with him and it would be great to have you involved as well of course. I would be extremely careful in telling Matt about the Tornetrask data being strictly for his private personal use in collaboration with us. He seems like an honest, earnest, young man who just needs a bit of expert guidance to avoid simple mistakes in using tree rings. The payoff could truly be quite special. Are you on board? How is Amy doing? Will the operation be this week? 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 2, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:conten t-type; bh=bPj0nPrRkf3uRSSEvmdzt88vE3KQvg24Fcnfo+uwq/4=; b=tH0a/lXpdfuFF2YjK1qs3FwmbZoB64143dl1g+4NANFLeo2YJ9d7MIC6IUqTN6wlbDfd8kHZMjZq6OGfU2bGkGtCV +pFdX5HiswElx/7biiQB8aBSx4b0yWzcwh8/CtEkOY3FsD1/ks11MLkoyIQ//73NithHtsg90coE8QQAUE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; b=okxgxreOtlMfn/kzmex18sP5YZJ0FQ9HtbCAOPjC/XeykImY510sP+Bo8vKO/5EIbDtiHhbvyhew+Vh+kHF6FVliY 13xw5b8mTXTBkI1BSVoyuJ5bOknFxDFbukkxwEvyjiOmijPvMZ1XUcWhFfzWdUTil7FiUyJqHLTLXl4pdE= Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 15:18:42 +1200 From: "Jonathan Palmer" <[2]gondwanadendro@gmail.com> To: "Keith Briffa" <[3]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Palaeoclimate uncertainites X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f023) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Tag at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 4057944 - d414a12b12cb (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4057944&m=d414a12b12cb&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [5]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4057944&m=d414a12b12cb&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [6]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4057944&m=d414a12b12cb&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO Hi Keith Many thanks for including me in the net of opinions being sought. Here are some comments and thoughts to use/ignore. Sorry for the delayed response. 1) sources of climate interpretational uncertainty how can this be quantified and represented? Not sure on how to deal with this (you and Steady are my hopes here!). I do however want to push interhemisphere differences in data availability leading to interpretational uncertainty. We simply haven't got the same network coverage of sites as seen in NH. Also, the most interesting stories emerging are not aligned to the conventional PEP (North-South) associations - for example the interdecadal pacific oscillation with the atlantic multidecadal oscillation. 2) strategies for reducing these uncertainties? My main barrow-push here would be to step-up international research programs and particularly in the SH. Better spatial coverage. For example, we in NZ are progressing too slowly due to a very limited funding pool. Read: NZ has multi-species potential, Tassie has Huon pine, Ricardo has S America. Perhaps we need to develop a network (with you and Steady) that aims at leveraging funding? Can you come south? Steady is coming next year Jan-March for a couple of weeks - can you join us? 3) database / data archiving needs and ideas? Misses the point. Major crisis looming here are the physical samples. We are loosing the trees. Steady can tell you about his efforts in SE-Asia. In NZ, we have 40,000 year old ancient kauri being mined. I reckon it will be exhausted within 10 years. The holocene sites in 5 years. Saw-millers are already starting to buy farms so that they can secure some future supply. We have set-up an archive at a local museum for biscuits of kauri for future research programs. In other words I have adopted a fire-fighting approach - save as many samples as I can and hope there might be funding to work on them later. Steady has funded me over the last 5 years to collect silver pine (Halocarpus biformis) from the West Cost. We have multi-millennial chronos thanks to that investment - but some sources have been completely destroyed by the land being converted to dairy pastures. The other area is now a kiwi habitat sanctuary so the permit process for further sampling has become much harder. So, data archiving is vital, but I'm first trying to save samples! So far I have 20' container and 4.5 x 6m shed with my samples stored in them. I am starting to use Filemaker Pro for a relational database for all the data - a wonderful example of this type of application was presented at INQUA by Phil Barrat at QUB (former PhD of Mike Baillie but the silly sod burnt his bridge there). I'm using a similar approach to Phil and have also roped in Gretel Boswijk at Auckland Uni. We are both going to use the same database template and will store copied of each others archive (for insurance etc). I have attached a copy of the template. Other: Your UK Department for International Development (DFID) has announced it will spend 100m stirling on research in developing countries "into the impacts of climate change on the poorest and most vulnerable people and helping communities, governments and the private sector take action to help prepare for these impacts". My point is they are saying more detailed climate impact models (with known uncertainties) might be useful for the UK - it isn't for developing countries. What the developing countries need is grass-roots adaption strategies. The science needs to not only be published in peer-reviewed (western) journals but also other communication channels - such as video, community visits and the mass media. A starting point might be the expectation that some publications are published "locally" (and translated). This ofcourse means we are sacrificing our citation profile etc. and currently means any academic losses potential RAE ranking. However, funding agencies like NERC could be encouraged to make this a requirement (and this would then hopefully spill into the RAE system). Gotta go. Am en-route to Karachi for 3+weeks working for Steady. Let me know how it goes. Cheers Jonathan 2008/5/16 Keith Briffa <<[7]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>[8]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate Uncertainties PLEASE NOTE - this message has been sent to a representative selection of those working in different tree-ring laboratories - please forward to those of your colleagues who would be interested - THANK YOU Dear Colleagues, I have been tasked with drafting the 'White paper' in the general topic of 'Reducing Uncertainties', in my case with a focus on tree-ring data. This is meant as the basis for discussion at a wider meeting dealing with various high-resolution proxy data, being held in Trieste funded by PAGES/CLIVAR. Hence I am asking for specific input from any of those among you who wish to contribute specific points or stress, even briefly or as concepts, areas of concern regarding present work or future requirements. The context is general dendroclimatology and the use of tree-ring-derived climate reconstructions specifically for establishing the precedence of instrumental observations in a recent multi-millennial context. The specific issues I have been asked to address include: 1) sources of climate interpretational uncertainty how can this be quantified and represented? 2) strategies for reducing these uncertainties? 3) database / data archiving needs and ideas? The 'white paper' is only intended to be several pages long so specific ideas, concerns etc. along the lines indicated, would be very welcome. I would then try to condense them and draft the text. I must complete this task in the next 2 weeks so brief, initial thoughts and points that you consider must be included would be most welcome. At present Ed Cook ,Rosanne D'Arrigo and Dave Frank are included among the participants ( Congratulations to Jan Esper on the recent arrival of a brace of beautiful girls - provided they take after their mother that is) and I would particularly hope for input from them but I know it is vital to get wider input from others working in this area of dendroclimatology or who have real concerns with the issue of climate change detection and attribution and the use of tree-ring data for model validation or work aimed at quantifying transient climate sensitivity in the real world. Any thoughts, specific text or important PowerPoint slides would be most welcome. With very best wishes and thanks Keith Briffa 15th May 2008 -- 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/>[10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/bri ffa/ -- Dr Jonathan Palmer Gondwana Tree-Ring Laboratory PO Box 14, Little River Canterbury 7546 New Zealand Content-Type: application/pdf; name="NZ Dendro-Archive.pdf" X-Attachment-Id: f_fgvmvgwu0 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="NZ Dendro-Archive.pdf" -- 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/ 3956. 2008-06-02 09:32:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Steven Sherwood , "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , "'Susan Solomon'" , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Frank Wentz date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:32:01 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Our d3* test to: Carl Mears Dear Carl, This issue is now covered in the version of the manuscript that I sent out on Friday. The d2* and d3* statistics have been removed. The new d1* statistic DOES involve the standard error of the model average trend in the denominator (together with the adjusted standard error of the observed trend; see equation 12 in revised manuscript). The slight irony here is that the new d1* statistic essentially reduces to the old d1* statistic, since the adjusted standard error of the observed trend is substantially larger than the standard error of the model average trend... With best regards, Ben Carl Mears wrote: > Hi > > I think I agree (partly, anyway) with Steve S. > > I think that d3* partly double counts the uncertainty. > > Here is my thinking that leads me to this: > > Assume we have a "perfect model". A perfect model means in this context > 1. Correct sensitivities to all forcing terms > 2. Forcing terms are all correct > 3. Spatial temporal structure of internal variability is correct. > > In other words, the model output has exactly the correct "underlying" > trend, but > different realizations of internal variability and this variability has > the right > structure. > > We now run the model a bunch of times and compute the trend in each case. > The spread in the trends is completely due to internal variability. > > We compare this to the "perfect" real world trend, which also has > uncertainty due > to internal variability (but nothing else). > > To me either one of the following is fair: > > 1. We test whether the observed trend is inside the distribution of > model trends. The uncertainty in the > observed trend is already taken care of by the spread in modeled trends, > since the representation of > internal uncertainty is accurate. > > 2. We test whether the observed trend is equal to the mean model trend, > within uncertainty. Uncertainty here is > the uncertainty in the observed trend s{b{o}}, combined with the > uncertainty in the mean model trend (SE{b{m}}. > > If we use d3*, I think we are doing both these at once, and thus double > counting the internal variability > uncertainty. Option 2 is what Steve S is advocating, and is close to > d1*, since SE{b{m}} is so small. > Option 1 is d2*. > > Of course the problem is that our models are not perfect, and a > substantial portion of the spread in > model trends is probably due to differences in sensitivity and forcing, > and the representation > of internal variability can be wrong. I don't know how to separate the > model trend distribution into > a "random" and "deterministic" part. I think d1* and d2* above get at > the problem from 2 different angles, > while d3* double counts the internal variability part of the > uncertainty. So it is not surprising that we > get some funny results for synthetic data, which only have this kind of > uncertainty. > > Comments? > > -Carl > > > > > On May 29, 2008, at 5:36 AM, Steven Sherwood wrote: > >> >> On May 28, 2008, at 11:46 PM, Ben Santer wrote: >>> >>> Recall that our current version of d3* is defined as follows: >>> >>> d3* = ( b{o} - <> ) / sqrt[ (s{} ** 2) + ( s{b{o}} ** 2) ] >>> >>> where >>> >>> b{o} = Observed trend >>> <> = Model average trend >>> s{} = Inter-model standard deviation of ensemble-mean trends >>> s{b{o}} = Standard error of the observed trend (adjusted for >>> autocorrelation effects) >> >> Shouldn't the first term under sqrt be the standard deviation of the >> estimate of <> -- e.g., the standard error of -- rather >> than the standard deviation of ? d3* would I think then be >> equivalent to a z-score, relevant to the null hypothesis that models >> on average get the trend right. As written, I think the distribution >> of d3* will have less than unity variance under this hypothesis. >> >> SS >> >> >> ----- >> Steven Sherwood >> Steven.Sherwood@yale.edu >> Yale University ph: 203 >> 432-3167 >> P. O. Box 208109 fax: 203 >> 432-3134 >> New Haven, CT 06520-8109 >> http://www.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4641. 2008-06-02 09:49:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook , Upmanu Lall , Keith Briffa date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 09:49:01 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Tornetrask Scots Pine data to: Matthew Schofield Hi Matt, Here is a zipped archive containing the Tornetrask raw measurement ring-width data sent to me by Keith via Tom Melvin on June 4, 2007. It covers the period -38 to 1997. The archive has six (6) files in it: TornAD_Briffa_raw.txt the raw ring-width measurements in original Tucson decadal format TornAD_Briffa_raw_col.txt the raw ring-width measurements in SAS space-delimited column-ASCII format TornAD_Briffa_raw_out.txt the output file that lists the contents of the data file and a few statistics too TornAD_Cook_rwl.txt the raw ring-width measurements in original Tucson decadal format TornAD_Cook_rwl_col.txt the raw ring-width measurements in SAS space-delimited column-ASCII format TornAD_Cook_rwl_out.txt the output file that lists the contents of the data file and a few statistics too The only difference between the Briffa and Cook data sets is that I deleted 12 series when I was in the process of creating the powerpoint presentation I showed you. So "Briffa" has 587 series and "Cook" has 575 series in their respective data files. I don't recall exactly why I deleted those 12 series, but I think it had something to do with them having highly anomalous growth patterns relative to the RCS curve estimated from the ensemble. So the only reason why I send you the Cook version is that it matches exactly what I showed you in the powerpoint presentation. However, I would use Keith's data set in your analyses. Again, just to be absolutely clear, these data are to be used only by us and not distributed to anyone else without explicit permission from Keith. 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 ================================== Hi Matt, Here is a zipped archive containing the Tornetrask raw measurement ring-width data sent to me by Keith via Tom Melvin on June 4, 2007. It covers the period -38 to 1997. The archive has six (6) files in it: TornAD_Briffa_raw.txt the raw ring-width measurements in original Tucson decadal format TornAD_Briffa_raw_col.txt the raw ring-width measurements in SAS space-delimited column-ASCII format TornAD_Briffa_raw_out.txt the output file that lists the contents of the data file and a few statistics too TornAD_Cook_rwl.txt the raw ring-width measurements in original Tucson decadal format TornAD_Cook_rwl_col.txt the raw ring-width measurements in SAS space-delimited column-ASCII format TornAD_Cook_rwl_out.txt the output file that lists the contents of the data file and a few statistics too The only difference between the Briffa and Cook data sets is that I deleted 12 series when I was in the process of creating the powerpoint presentation I showed you. So "Briffa" has 587 series and "Cook" has 575 series in their respective data files. I don't recall exactly why I deleted those 12 series, but I think it had something to do with them having highly anomalous growth patterns relative to the RCS curve estimated from the ensemble. So the only reason why I send you the Cook version is that it matches exactly what I showed you in the powerpoint presentation. However, I would use Keith's data set in your analyses. Again, just to be absolutely clear, these data are to be used only by us and not distributed to anyone else without explicit permission from Keith. Cheers, Ed Content-Type: application/zip; x-unix-mode=0644; name=Tornetrask Scots Pine.zip Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Tornetrask Scots Pine.zip" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Tornetrask Scots Pine.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 ================================== 4401. 2008-06-02 13:28:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 2 13:28:58 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: Re: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate to: drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:27:48 +0100 To: Rob Wilson From: Keith Briffa Subject: Re: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate Uncertainties Rob I agree with virtually everything you say - thanks. I will not be at the meeting now as Amy , my daughter is ill , but will forward this on (I think virtually all points are covered in my brief notes to Ed anyway) to ED and Dave Frank who will be leading the tree-ring discussion in my abscence. Cheers Keith At 11:13 18/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, will keep this as short as possible as you could be inundated with all sorts of replies. Rosanne has already sent you divergence related info. I think the only thing I would add is that the 'divergence' issue should really only be addressed and examined for those TR proxy series which have a strong relationship with climate. I was recently at the TRACE meeting in Poland and everybody was seeing divergence, but when the TR records only correlate at ~0.4 with some climatic variable, it all comes a bit academic and meaningless. Many of the RW chronologies in Alaska which show divergence are really only weak temperature proxies at best even in the period prior to divergence. This has become a bit of a bandwagon which was never my intention. So - areas where I think dendroclimatologists should focus: 1. We need to specifically move on from the concept that "15 trees are enough". If at all possible we should try and encourage people to sample as much as possible and not be afraid to try and go for more than 50 series/trees per year. Of course this will not always be possible/easy when extending living material with historical/sub-fossil material, but there is no reason to restrict ourselves to only relatively few trees in the living period. High replication will help us overcome signal to noise issues as well as limitations in detrending etc. 2. Some sort of strategic update of the large scale networks (Schweingrubers being the best example) is needed. Many of the important chronologies around the Northern Hemisphere need to be brought up to present. This will result in addressing potential calibration issues in the recent period, but also ensuring that resulting reconstructions will also extend to present. Also where possible for those key sites (e.g. Tornetrask etc) which are always used in NH recons for example, some sort of validation is needed of their long term trends. Hakan Grudds recent update of Tornetrask, I think, is no more believable than the original version (I am not saying this in a negative way it just needs some validation). It would be much better to develop another similarly long TR record from a neighbouring climatologically similar region to check long term trends. The Alpine example is a good example of this where multiple independent TR series have now been developed which all basically show the same story. 3. A better sampling of different age classes within a stand. At the very least, I think we should sample both young and old trees at a site. This will facilitate the use of detrending methods such as RCS as well as allowing for analyses to test for age dependent relationships. 4. In the context of large scale millennial length reconstructions, we need to target regions where no long 1000+ year TR record exists (as well as updating existing ones!). We may not entirely agree on this, but I feel that much more good quality data are needed for better estimates of NH temperatures especially during the MWP. Also, if we really want better spatial information we must increase the density of the current NH network. For example - there are no 1000+ year long records between the Yukon and Labrador surely we, as a community, can fill this gap? 5. Although RW data is a nice cheap proxy, more often than not, the climate signal is not as strong as we would like. We need to encourage labs to also measured density (or possibly the related blue reflectance measure) where possible. For example Greg Wiles is sitting on a 1500+ year long highly replicated composite for coastal Alaska and no density work has been done on this material. I believe Dave Frank may have started negotiations in this direction though. 6. Isotopes. I am watching results from ISONET and MILLENNIUM closely. My gut feeling is that in those regions and for those species where traditional RW/MXD do very well, stable isotopes do not provide any more useful information. However, there are encouraging results in areas where traditional approaches provide no information, where isotopes may indeed allow some sort of climatic interpretation. For example temperature data from C and O isotopes measured from Oak samples in Northern Britain etc. 7. We should not assume that the early instrumental record is robust. The recent work in the Alpine region with Reinhard Bohm et al. shows how TR proxy records could at least help identify homogeneity issues in climate records. Of course, we need to have faith in the proxies, but with more replication, multiple sites etc, I think this should not be a problem given time. 8. Finally, w.r.t. to NH reconstructions, individual constituent TR chronologies should be assessed for their climatic relevance at the local scale ONLY i.e. they are robust estimates for local/regional climate. It does NOT matter how they correlate with large scale NH temperatures. Anyway hope the comments are of some use Regards Rob Keith Briffa wrote: A General Call for Input to a Meeting on Palaeoclimate Uncertainties PLEASE NOTE - this message has been sent to a representative selection of those working in different tree-ring laboratories - please forward to those of your colleagues who would be interested - THANK YOU Dear Colleagues, I have been tasked with drafting the White paper in the general topic of Reducing Uncertainties, in my case with a focus on tree-ring data. This is meant as the basis for discussion at a wider meeting dealing with various high-resolution proxy data, being held in Trieste funded by PAGES/CLIVAR. Hence I am asking for specific input from any of those among you who wish to contribute specific points or stress, even briefly or as concepts, areas of concern regarding present work or future requirements. The context is general dendroclimatology and the use of tree-ring-derived climate reconstructions specifically for establishing the precedence of instrumental observations in a recent multi-millennial context. The specific issues I have been asked to address include: 1) sources of climate interpretational uncertainty how can this be quantified and represented? 2) strategies for reducing these uncertainties? 3) database / data archiving needs and ideas? The white paper is only intended to be several pages long so specific ideas, concerns etc. along the lines indicated, would be very welcome. I would then try to condense them and draft the text. I must complete this task in the next 2 weeks so brief, initial thoughts and points that you consider must be included would be most welcome. At present Ed Cook ,Rosanne D'Arrigo and Dave Frank are included among the participants ( Congratulations to Jan Esper on the recent arrival of a brace of beautiful girls - provided they take after their mother that is) and I would particularly hope for input from them but I know it is vital to get wider input from others working in this area of dendroclimatology or who have real concerns with the issue of climate change detection and attribution and the use of tree-ring data for model validation or work aimed at quantifying transient climate sensitivity in the real world. Any thoughts, specific text or important PowerPoint slides would be most welcome. With very best wishes and thanks Keith Briffa 15^th May 2008 -- 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/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ -- 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/ 1909. 2008-06-02 14:13:19 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 2 14:13:19 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript to: "Newton, Alicia" Dear Alicia, My review of this paper is attached. As you'll be able to gather I think that such an analysis is speculative, as volcanic events are infrequent so the sample count is small. I've made some suggestions that the authors should consider. It will be difficult to do what I suggest and make it convincing, but I think there needs to more and extracting the ENSO signal is one way to highlight what's left. It certainly helped with the paper in Nature in last week's issue. Best Regards Phil At 13:59 23/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil- Thanks for agreeing to help us with this manuscript. I will send you a link to the manuscript and instructions for referees in an e-mail to follow shortly. I would be grateful if you could consider the following questions in your review. Do you feel that this represents an advance in our understanding of the tropical response to volcanic forcing? Tropical climate over the past 4 centuries more generally? Does the record generated fully support the conclusions? Thanks again for your help. I look forward to reading you comments! Alicia ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 May 2008 13:50 To: Newton, Alicia Subject: Re: Nature Geoscience Review Request - manuscript NGS-2008-05-00486 Alicia, OK. Send the manuscript or details of how to access it. Cheers Phil At 13:26 23/05/2008, you wrote: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12115455812840711" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 08:26:21 -0400 Message-Id: <92121154558176@rhwww3.nature.com.nature.com> Dear Professor Jones As you may have heard, we have recently launched Nature Geoscience, a monthly research journal (please see our website [2]http://www.nature.com/ngeo for more information). A short manuscript has been submitted to Nature Geoscience, which we were hoping you would be interested in reviewing. The manuscript comes from Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope and is entitled "Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries". Its first paragraph is pasted below. Would you be able to assess the novelty and importance of this manuscript for us, within about 14 days of receiving the paper? If you are unable to help us with this, can you suggest any alternative referees who would have an appropriate expertise? I would also be grateful for any thoughts that you might have regarding other referees who would be appropriate to complement your expertise on this work. Thank you in advance for your help and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours sincerely Alicia Newton Associate Editor Nature Geoscience Nature Publishing Group The Macmillan Building 4 Crinan Street London N1 9XW UK +44 20 7833 4000 Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, and Alexander Tudhope Knowledge of volcanism's impact on tropical climate is limited prior to the instrumental period, yet important for understanding climate variability. Here we combine 19 coral, tree-ring and ice core proxies into an annual composite record that provides a comprehensive view of volcanism's impact on tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) during recent centuries. We find an association between tropical volcanism and cold reconstructed tropical temperatures, although the cooling is spatially variable across the tropics. Only minimal cooling is observed following extratropical eruptions. Severe conditions following the (likely tropical) unknown1 and Tambora, Indonesia eruptions of the early 1800s suggest that this was the coldest sustained period of the Little Ice Age in the tropics. By contrast, the tropical impact of the 1600 Huaynaputina, Peru event2 appears much weaker than at higher latitudes, but the number of tropical proxies at this time is low. Our results have implications for how the tropical ocean-atmosphere system responds to natural and anthropogenic radiative forcing. 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 geoscience@nature.com. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************************************** 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 ******************************************************************************** Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3510. 2008-06-02 15:44:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:44:28 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: nomination: materials needed! to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, This is coming along nicely. I've got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum is six letters including mine as nominator). Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance! mike Selected bibliography * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * Begin by briefly stating the candidate's total number and types of publications and specifying the number published in AGU journals. * Do not just select the most recent publications; choose those that best support your argument for Fellowship. Curriculum Vitae * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * List the candidate's name, address, history of employment, degrees, research experience, honors, memberships, and service to the community through committee work, advisory boards, etc. -- 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: [1]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1522. 2008-06-02 15:50:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 2 15:50:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: New Nature paper to: Mike MacCracken Mike, I mentioned over the weekend the several thousand British logbooks that are being digitized. Most are done, but the data now need to be QC'd before adding. These will certainly help with the 1940s. As I hope I said, I only think this is going to affect the period from 1940-1955. Digitization costs, so we're only doing about half of the British logbooks that haven't been already done. Once all done, this will likely move the sulphates drop later - more to where it probably occured in the 1950s through the late 1970s. The trouble with using tropospheric sulphate to help slow warming is that at some point the Indians and the Chinese are going to come under increasing pressure on local air pollution. As you say, they were stopped in Europe and North America for this issue and the slightly further afield acid rain. Cheers Phil At 16:42 31/05/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil--According to news accounts, very interesting result in your new Nature paper. Being retired, I don't have direct access and wonder if you could send a copy along. I just finished a review paper on climate change science, etc.--basically a summary across the IPCC WG I and II assessments, and in it, as it allowed some personal reflections, I took issue with whether the obs during the years of WW II had had all the biases removed yet--not thinking there might be a problem just after the war years. What has struck me is how different an impression one gets of the 20th century change if one puts one's finger over the war year results--just seems very suspicious, and my recollection is that you are already making some pretty large adjustments over that period to things like nighttime marine air temperature (due to more measurements being near the wheelhouse instead of at the bow of the ship, etc.). I think it is also interesting that in the regional results on attribution in the new IPCC report (so figure SPM.4, for example), the only region and time that the observations are outside the model band is apparently during the war years for the global ocean (North America and South America during that period are also a bit problematic). Your new result will help a bit, but not seem to resolve that problem, so I guess I am wondering if there is work continuing on looking at the observations for that period? What it seems to me really needs to be done (though hard with limited data) is to extend the reanalyses back to before WW II--and then figuring out if the patterns look consistent, etc. with later patterns. On this issue of the sulfates, only the very newest inventories are trying to differentiate between surface and elevated SO2 emissions--even though this makes a very large difference in atmospheric lifetimes. I have done a bit of looking at the net forcing for GHGs and aerosols over time and it is interesting how the sulfates offset (considering both direct and indirect influences) the GHGs until the early 1970s or so--then the GHG effect takes off. All the movement to elevated SO2 emissions was done to reduce pollution, and it makes me wonder if the Chinese and Indians might soon go to the solutions the US and Europe used in the 1930s-60s---namely, filter out the particles and loft the SO2 (leading to a lot of sulfate). This would seem to mean that for a few decades we may get a growing sulfate offset to the forcing (so little temperature rise--and perhaps a lessening of political pressure to do something), and then as GHGs climb, wow, what a lot of warming potential. What is troubling is that I have not found any group looking at SO2 emission inventories for China and India and differentiating surface and lofted emissions--our EPA is going to work with them on CO2 emissions, but not SO2, and these really need to be compiled. Best regards, Mike MacCracken Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 867. 2008-06-03 05:03:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:03:46 -0400 from: a.newton@nature.com subject: Nature Geoscience: Receipt of review for NGS-2008-05-00486 to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_12124838262352012" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:03:46 -0400 Message-Id: <52121248382681@rhwww3.nature.com.nature.com> Dear Professor Jones This email is to acknowledge receipt of your review for the manuscript by Dr D'Arrigo and co-authors, entitled "Impact of volcanic forcing on tropical temperatures during the last four centuries". Thank you for your help in this matter. A copy of your review is attached below for your reference. Yours sincerely Hollie Cayzer Editorial Assistant Nature Geoscience For Dr Alicia Newton Your comments: Remarks to the Editor: As you'll be able to gather I think that such an analysis is speculative, as volcanic events are infrequent so the sample count is small. I've made some suggestions that the authors should consider. It will be difficult to do what I suggest and make it convincing, but I think there needs to more and extracting the ENSO signal is one way to highlight what's left. It certainly helped with the paper in Nature in last week's issue. Remarks to the Author: I read this paper fairly quickly shortly after receiving it and my initial thought was that it was a bit speculative. The problem was that volcanic events are fairly infrequent, and much of the 3-5 year timescale variability in the tropics is likely to be due to ENSO-related forcing/variability. About a week later I read the paper in the May 29 issue of Nature by Thompson et al. This had shown a neat way of removing the higher-frequency variability related to ENSO to help show the volcanic-related cooling events more clearly. This is exactly what this paper needs to do. The Thompson paper was only looking at the observational record and had monthly timescales to work with. What needs to be done here is to extract the ENSO (principally the La Nina events) signal from the series in Figure 1B. Thompson's approach using Nino-based SST is a possibility, but another alternative is a smoothed (say about 3yr timescale) version of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). The method could be tested on the observational SST series then applied to the reconstructed SST. The SOI extends back to the mid-1860s, but there are a number of tree-ring based reconstructions of the SOI that could then take ENSO out of what is essentially a coral-based SST reconstruction. In its present form, I don't think the paper gives that much more than speculation about the impact of past volcanic events in the tropics. To concentrate on the corals in the tropical SST reconstruction I would omit the tree-ring series from Nepal and the Quelccaya Ice Cap. These latter two can be used to assess reconstructions, but throwing them all in together doesn't seem to add that much and loses potential additional verification of reconstruction models. From Supplementary Table S2, the quality of the reconstruction is highly variable in quality, only seemingly useful back to about the early 1800s. I'd concentrate on this and the instrumental period, as the 18th century is pretty much devoid of major tropical volcanic eruptions. Unless you can separate out the major cooling events in the tropical SST series that cannot be related to La Nina, this contribution is premature. The volcanic influence on higher latitude trees (MXD) is clear from earlier work. Most of the extreme cooling events are related to tropical explosive volcanic events. These same events should be in your series, but they are likely masked by strong ENSO variability - which is negligible in the MXD series. My only other major comment is that I would only look at the 5 years following each volcanic eruption - and not extend the results out to 16 years. Even 5 years is a stretch from climate modelling of volcanic eruptions and observational evidence. None of the results are significant beyond 5 years. My one minor comment is that I would have used HadSST2 (Rayner et al., 2006) rather than the spatially infilled HADISST. It would be useful to compare the time series for these two datasets. In summary, I don't think there is enough new in this paper to warrant publication in its present form. I have made some suggestions as to how the exercise can be made more convincing. I would need convincing about much of a volcanic impact on tropical temperatures, because there isn't that much after the major events of the 20th century. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS 836. 2008-06-03 08:47:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:47:58 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: nomination: materials needed! to: Phil Jones p.s. Kevin T is also writing a letter, as long as he can get it done before he heads out traveling in a couple days Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Have a look through these and see if they fit the bill. Check whether these print OK on US paper. On the bibliography I've listed the principal papers in four sections - and chosen mainly those where I'm first author. If you want me add any that you think I should let me know. There is countless more things I could add to the CV, but these are the major ones. Thanks for arranging this! Cheers Phil At 20:44 02/06/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, This is coming along nicely. I've got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum is six letters including mine as nominator). Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance! mike Selected bibliography * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * Begin by briefly stating the candidate's total number and types of publications and specifying the number published in AGU journals. * Do not just select the most recent publications; choose those that best support your argument for Fellowship. Curriculum Vitae * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * List the candidate's name, address, history of employment, degrees, research experience, honors, memberships, and service to the community through committee work, advisory boards, etc. -- 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: [1]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [2] 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 [3]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: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 3315. 2008-06-03 11:00:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'michele'" , "'Maurizio Maugeri'" , "'Alexander Orlik'" , "'''Wolfgang Schöner' ''" date: Tue Jun 3 11:00:09 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: WG: EI-news to: "Reinhard Boehm" Reinhard, Received OK this time and thanks. I had a look at the earlier spreadsheet last night. Looking at the new spreadsheet it looks as though the adjustments look good for the NW and NE regions. Basle and Geneva do not stand out as being different. All three areas show the recent warmth, but the warm bump in extended summers are comparable between the late 1940s/1950s and the 1790s/1800s, or the latter period was just a few tenths warmer. It does look as though for S the 1940s/1950s were clearly warmer than all earlier periods. You will be aware of a few of the Italian series drifting away from the others in the S region. I guess these may involve Milano and Padova - it is difficult to tell with the colouring of the lines. The same series drift away in the extended winter as well. These Italian series don't drift away in the difference plots (extended summer minus extended winter), so maybe it's a common problem. In the difference series (summer minus winter) the change is occurring prior to about 1890. This is much later than the problem decade of the 1860s when a lot of changes were occurring. I think in any paper it would good to also look at these difference plots for CET and De Bilt and maybe the Swedish series. I can send you the data to do this if you want. Some plots are in the attached paper from 2003. So, my suggestion would be to write up these adjustments. I assume you will need to explain the Kremsmunster results as a start. I presume the numbers I will need for the ALP-IMP WP9 paper are somewhere in this spreadsheet. I think all I'll need are the averages for the three regions NW, NE and S, but I won't start on this again until you've got an initial draft of your paper. Maurizo's point about clouds will work, but the cloud data will not be good enough to do this. Anders couldn't sort out the Swedish cloud data - even in the 20th century. I don't think the cloud data - even if digitized - would be a help. There are so many issues with observation times, and the fact that observers appeared to sometimes base the observation on the time they looked and sometimes over the whole day. The Swedish categories also reduced the further back in time. I don't want to slow down the paper, so this is only a suggestion, but I think the time series of rainday counts may be a better homogeneous proxy for cloudiness. Cloud observations will be a waste of time! Cheers Phil At 08:36 03/06/2008, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Phil, This yesterdays mail did not pass your file size limit. Therefore I try it once more, now with an attached slim version of the xls-file. I hope this will reach you now. Reinhard ___________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Reinhard Boehm [[1]mailto:kliboe@zamg.ac.at] Gesendet: Montag, 02. Juni 2008 11:04 An: 'Maurizio Maugeri'; 'Reinhard Boehm'; 'Phil Jones'; 'michele' Betreff: AW: EI-news Dear Maurizio, Michele and Phil, Thank You Maurizio for your mail. To initiate further proceeding, I attach here a completed file final-comp-HISTALP-ISAC.xls. It contains what Phil wanted (timeseries of summer minus winterhalfyears) and I have added also hom minus ori timeseries. And all already existing plots have been completed with the respective regional mean series (all based on the 20-yrs smoothed version). As I understood Maurizio argued to use the HISTALP version for further proceeding. Of course this is also my preferred option, but I still think we should mention, that independent homogenising activities in Italy produced a cooler EI-period, and maybe to use this as a kind of uncertainty measure. Whats your opinion? Reinhard ___________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Maurizio Maugeri [[2]mailto:maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2008 11:41 An: Reinhard Boehm; 'Phil Jones'; 'michele' Betreff: Re: EI-news Dear Reinhard, in the last months Michele and I spent a number of days on our early records with the aim of producing a revised and improved version of our homogenisation. We really tried to use all available information and we considered, beside the minimum and maximum temperature records, also the wide metadata availability that we have for some of our records. Moreover, after each new correction, we checked the homogenised records in order to verify whether the applied correction caused a new inhomogeneity in the daily temperature range records or it produced an anomalous picture of the yearly temperature cycle. According to our experience, such checks turn out to be very useful in order to avoid illegitimate corrections, which always constitute a remarkable risk in indirect homogenisation methods, especially in time periods characterised by low data availability and/or by a high number of inhomogeneities. So, we are really confident that we did our best with our records, even though we perfectly understand that the very low number of early records in our dataset is a strong limitation which reduces our results significance. Actually the records we used are not just Milano and Padova, but also Torino, Bologna, Genova (which is a very good record), Mantova, Udine and Alessandria. Moreover, we think that our data yielded interesting results that seem to be in good agreement with dendrochronological data, glacial data, etc. and that is also in good agreement with other datasets like the Swiss (partially) and Spanish ones. Nevertheless, I perfecly agree with you: if the vast majority of sites are warm in the EI period, we have to say that from the point of view of probability the warmer solution is more likely. Sciences are based on data and the final word pertains to the data themselves! So I agree with your proposal of applying the warm solution to the entire GAR, even though I think it is important to mention clearly in the publication that, beside the more likely warm solution, also a cold solution is possible though being less likely: the conclusion could be that, even though the data lead us to the warm solution, the question warm or cold for the early period is at present time still partially open. So, in the future, it could be very interesting to plan (and to propose for EU funding) a project aiming at reconsidering all EI European records with the aim of better understanding if the warm solution is really the most correct one. Such a project could also include other variables like e.g. cloud cover. Cloud cover can probably help to better decide between the warm and cold solutions because, if the 1860s strong summer warming showed by the cold solution is really present, that should be mirrored by a clear signal in the cloud cover records. At the same time, also the pressure records could be helpful (see e.g the EMULATE dataset and related projects). I have also read the answer by Michele from the Budapest meeting. I would suggest (for the Italian group) to stop here with the data analysis. Michele and I are completely aware of your records characteristics and the data you sent us are the same of the ones we subjected to a number of analyses during last autumn. On the other hand, you are perfectly aware of the characteristics of ours. So, I think that, after Phils comments, its time to start writing, trying and presenting the chosen solution and thoroughly discussing its possible limits. Ciao, Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [3]Reinhard Boehm To: [4]'Phil Jones' Cc: [5]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [6]'michele' Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: AW: EI-news Phil, Maurizio, Michele Yes, the diverging seven Italian cold-series (those with the suffix ISAC) were independently homogenised by Michele using Italian series only. All the other series (also those seven ISAC-series) were homogenised by us, using our routine HOCLIS-procedure). So there seems to be a break in the 1860s rather than a real diverging climate signal north vs. south, and my point is, that I see no systematic reason to EI-correct the vast majority of series in order to fit the majority to the minority. The relation of the original series is something like 8 warm vs. 2 cold series in subregion NW, 8 warm vs. 0 cold ones in NE and 3 warm ones (Torino, Genova, Trieste) vs. 3 to 4 warm or partly warm (?) ones (Milano, Padova, Mantova?, Bologna?) and several with unclear to very low quality (Verona and Trento). So I think it makes no sense to adjust some 20 warm series to some 5 cold ones, if there are no strong reasons from station history to do so. Therefore I see only two remaining possibilities to deal with the problem: 1) adjust the 5 cold series to the majority (thats what we have already done) 2) to mention that there is also another solution based on Italian series only and to use this as kind of an uncertainty band for the early period As to the idea to produce AMJJAS minus ONDJFM plots: there are none so far, but they can easily be done (but not earlier than this week because I have to leave in an hour and have other things to be done this morning We will also produce (lowpass filtered) HOM minus ORI plots. We have done so for non filtered series, but there you dont see much because of all the highfrequent noise Best regards _______________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [[7]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Mai 2008 17:08 An: Reinhard Boehm; 'michele'; 'Maurizio Maugeri' Cc: 'Alexander Orlik'; "'''Wolfgang Schöner' ''" Betreff: Re: EI-news Reinhard, Thanks. I need to look at the file in some detail. A quick look suggests to me that there are still problems with some series as the plots for the 4 groups diverge prior to about 1860. They remain quite tight except for one or two after this date. Have you plots of AMJJAS minus ONDJFM? Enjoy the dendro meeting. Cheers Phil At 14:45 27/05/2008, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Friends, This is to inform you about the latest EI-news. We have gone through all our longterm t-series once again and you see a summary of the result on the attached xls-file. On the first table sheet you see a comparison of all series for summer- and winter half years (AMJJAS and ONDJFM). Those with the suffix ISAC are the seven series which were sent by Michele and which, in the homogenised form (with Italian series only, if I remember well) are considerably colder in the warm season. Michele had just done once a comparison of the HISTALP-MEAN in Italy and the ISAC-mean. For a better understanding the second sheet shows the three subregions. In the attached file you get more information. You find the original and the homogenised series, for all single 32 long-term sites. All are lowpass filtered and without gaps and the originals are the outlier correctedoriginals, Alexander has produced in the last months. They are all anomalies to a long common 150 years period (1851-2000) The result in one sentence: the vast majority of sites are warm in the EI, so from the point of probability we think the decision is clear: the warmer solution is more likely. More in detail: It was (apart from the two strange series Verona and Trento) a game between Milano, Padova, Geneva and Basel (cold) and all the rest (also including some of the Italian sites, which are EI-warm). In my eyes the only real argument in favour of this group of cold EI sites is that the two of the three longest (starting in 1760) belong to them. But there are several (I think better) arguments for the warm solution: 1) the splitting happens quite suddenly in the 1860s, exactly at a time when in the Swiss weather service was founded and also in Italy there was a time of change from less organised to better organised service (your words Maurizio). This was not the case for southern Germany, Austria and Hungary. So the >Italian and Swiss sites should be more suspected for breaks especially in this decade 2) after the 1860s there were no regional differences in neither of the subperiods, therefore and also because of 1) it is extremely unlikely that we see a real splitting into subregionally different climate evolutions with a cold South and a warm north in the EI-period 3) we have also looked at the hom-ori series of each single site and we found no systematic accumulation of breaks in the 1860s in the warm series subset So for the moment we think it would be wise to use our solution for the entire GAR, but to mention in the publication, we want to start writing now, the existing difference between the warm and the cold solution and to use it as kind of uncertainty measure (whats your opinion Phil?). What would be the alternative: We should re-adjust more than 20 warm series based on the result of only four cold series. This really is the alternative, because we cannot describe it as a real subregional climate effect (as already argued). I am looking forward to your comments The rest of the week I am not at the ZAMG (EURODENDRO 2008) But maybe we could draw some decisions next week? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 854. 2008-06-03 12:58:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 3 12:58:48 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Divergence to: Kurt Kurt, I criticised Walter Oberhuber's methods during his talk. He found divergence using curve-fitting methods. He gave me a copy of his paper (2008 - Trees). He has a good set of trees, suitable for demonstrating the absence of divergence. Do you work with/know his group? Also I tried a transform with simple RCS method. The latest 140 years of tree growth do not fit the lower growth levels of the previous millennia. See attached. I will try other standardisation e.g. multiple curves etc and also try and find lower climate values to produce a wider distribution. Tom 3482. 2008-06-03 13:07:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 3 13:07:14 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: nomination: materials needed! to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Have a look through these and see if they fit the bill. Check whether these print OK on US paper. On the bibliography I've listed the principal papers in four sections - and chosen mainly those where I'm first author. If you want me add any that you think I should let me know. There is countless more things I could add to the CV, but these are the major ones. Thanks for arranging this! Cheers Phil At 20:44 02/06/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, This is coming along nicely. I've got 5 very strong supporting letter writers lined up to support your AGU Fellowship nomination (confidentially: Ben Santer, Tom Karl, Jean Jouzel, and Lonnie Thompson have all agreed, waiting to hear back from one more individual, maximum is six letters including mine as nominator). Meanwhile, if you can pass along the following information that is needed for the nomination package that would be very helpful. thanks in advance! mike Selected bibliography * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * Begin by briefly stating the candidates total number and types of publications and specifying the number published in AGU journals. * Do not just select the most recent publications; choose those that best support your argument for Fellowship. Curriculum Vitae * Must be no longer than 2 pages. * List the candidates name, address, history of employment, degrees, research experience, honors, memberships, and service to the community through committee work, advisory boards, etc. -- 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: [1]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [2]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3286. 2008-06-03 16:07:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:07:17 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Tim Osborn" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, As I have not heard anything further from you subsequent to Tim's email below, I will be doing the following: A. Will send response to FOI_O8-23 as drafted & circulated B. Will acknowledge and treat Mr. Holland's letter of 27 May as a separate request. I have acknowledged the request as such, and will draft a response regarding the referral of some elements of his request to the IPCC and answering the other sections. Who would be my contact with the IPCC to which I could forward this request? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:11 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Dear Dave, > >I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith >and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with >specific reference to the public interest section. > >Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As >Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we >haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in >confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, >and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the >'appropriate >>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In >particular, your >>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence >>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. >> >>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about >right of appeal >>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) >> > >> >Hi Dave >> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my >letter over >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is >unreasonable - >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter >6 authors >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >> >cheers >> >Keirth >> > >> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>Gents, >> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >> >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >> >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was >going to make >> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >> >along the lines >> >>of .... >> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >> >letter of 31 >> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >> >under this >> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the >requester is not >> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >> >question... Your >> >>opinions? >> >> >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >> >Subject: >> >> > >> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >> >comments and on >> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you >, I intend >> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to >Holland tomorrow >> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >> >I did not >> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not >believe that this >> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting >process in any >> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence >will not be >> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >> >thanks again >> >> >Keith >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >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/ >> > >> > >> > >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 > > > 3483. 2008-06-03 16:14:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:14:09 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Thank you for this. I was advocating treating this as one thing, but have been persuade by Tim's argument that they are separated. I am therefore happy for you to proceed as outlined in your recent message. Apologies that you have had to chase me on this one. Thanks for all your help. 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: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: 03 June 2008 16:07 To: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) Gents, As I have not heard anything further from you subsequent to Tim's email below, I will be doing the following: A. Will send response to FOI_O8-23 as drafted & circulated B. Will acknowledge and treat Mr. Holland's letter of 27 May as a separate request. I have acknowledged the request as such, and will draft a response regarding the referral of some elements of his request to the IPCC and answering the other sections. Who would be my contact with the IPCC to which I could forward this request? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:11 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Dear Dave, > >I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith >and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with >specific reference to the public interest section. > >Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As >Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we >haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in >confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, >and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the >'appropriate >>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In >particular, your >>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence >>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. >> >>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about >right of appeal >>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) >> > >> >Hi Dave >> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my >letter over >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is >unreasonable - >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter >6 authors >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >> >cheers >> >Keirth >> > >> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>Gents, >> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >> >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >> >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was >going to make >> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >> >along the lines >> >>of .... >> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >> >letter of 31 >> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >> >under this >> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the >requester is not >> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >> >question... Your >> >>opinions? >> >> >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >> >Subject: >> >> > >> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >> >comments and on >> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you >, I intend >> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to >Holland tomorrow >> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >> >I did not >> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not >believe that this >> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting >process in any >> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence >will not be >> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >> >thanks again >> >> >Keith >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >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/ >> > >> > >> > >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 > > > 4629. 2008-06-03 16:56:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jun 3 16:56:57 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: to: John Finn John, Any tropospheric aerosol forcing (mainly sulphates) may affect the climate more locally than further afield. With climate models run with just sulphate aerosol forcing (in eastern Nortn America, Europe and China) there are effects locally, but also effects downstream a long way from the source. The forcing is regionally specific, but the effects can be more widespread - at least within the NH. So your logic about where the greatest cooling might be may not be correct, but then no-one will know the true answer. Warming/cooling trends may be great in polar regions, but variability is greater there. This means that the trend may not be as significant as an area more in the mid or low latitudes, so it is important to consider the significance of the trends, rather than the magnitude. The area of the polar region is also much smaller than regions of the same latitude belts nearer the equator. Have you looked at the IPCC AR4 report - Ch 2 on forcing and the modelling chapters? The chapters are on-line at the WG1 web site. See Figure 2.12. Aerosols have a direct effect on climate which tends to be more local, but there is an indirect effect (through clouds) that causes effects further afield. A number of models produce a large indirect effect over the Southern Oceans, but it is difficult to assess this as there are few observations there. Cheers Phil At 12:35 03/06/2008, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones Commenting on the recently published paper which claims to explain the ~1945 sea temperature anomaly, you are reported as saying the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide Theres something bothering me about this statement. To illustrate Id like to draw your attention to another paper (Climate Change over past Millenia) by Mann and Jones (i.e. you). In Section 5.1.4 you write Compared to greenhouse gas forcing, sulphate aerosol forcing is far more uncertain, principally because of limited understanding of the radiative properties of the aerosols and their effects on clouds. This forcing is also REGIONALLY SPECIFIC and must be estimated from past fossil fuel use (see, e.g., Crowley [2000, and references therein] for further discussion). Note my emphasis on regionally specific. From which I take it that, due to the short residence time of aerosols in the atmosphere, the greatest climatic effect (i.e. cooling) due to aerosols will be close to the source of the emissions. A fact that is supported by several other papers. For example from Levitus et al (2005), we have The second is that the natural and anthropogenic aerosols are not well-mixed geographically and can have a substantial effect on regional warming rates Here Levitus is giving the second of 3 reasons for non-uniform heating of the oceans. My understanding is, therefore, that if sulphate aerosols cause cooling then the greatest cooling will occur in the industrialised regions which produce the aerosols. I hope my logic is correct here. So now consider the following data which is from the GISS (land-only) surface temperature record. 64N-90N -0.93 44N-64N -0.17 24N-44N -0.21 24N-EQU -0.09 The figures show the total cooling for each latitude band for the 32 year period between 1944 and 1975. Note that the cooling is greatest (by far) in the latitudes north of 64 deg and that cooling tends to be less as we get closer to the equator. This is almost a mirror image of the warming since 1975, i.e. greatest warming at northerly latitudes and less at the equator. But the important point is that the mid latitudes which include the big post-war industrialised regions (US and Europe) experienced much less cooling than the non-industrialised Arctic regions. This, to me, doesnt seem to square with the aerosol cooling theory. Thanks for any help you can give. John Finn ___________________________________________________________________________________ Get 5GB of online storage for free! [1]Get it 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1960. 2008-06-03 17:13:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:13:55 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Fine by me. Martin Manning would be the person at IPCC technical support unit for working group 1, assuming he is still there and it hasn't been wound up following completion of the report? Phil or Keith may know. Tim At 16:07 03/06/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >As I have not heard anything further from you subsequent to Tim's email >below, I will be doing the following: > >A. Will send response to FOI_O8-23 as drafted & circulated > >B. Will acknowledge and treat Mr. Holland's letter of 27 May as a >separate request. I have acknowledged the request as such, and will >draft a response regarding the referral of some elements of his request >to the IPCC and answering the other sections. Who would be my contact >with the IPCC to which I could forward this request? > >Cheers, Dave > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:11 PM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie > >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > > > >Dear Dave, > > > >I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith > >and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with > >specific reference to the public interest section. > > > >Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As > >Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we > >haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in > >confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, > >and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? > > > >Best regards > > > >Tim > > > >At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, > >>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the > >'appropriate > >>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In > >particular, your > >>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence > >>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. > >> > >>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about > >right of appeal > >>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. > >> > >>Cheers, Dave > >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM > >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn > >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >> > > >> >Hi Dave > >> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my > >letter over > >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send > >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I > >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is > >unreasonable - > >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter > >6 authors > >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is > >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into > >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely > >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests. > >> >cheers > >> >Keirth > >> > > >> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >> >>Gents, > >> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) > >> >> > >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? > >> >> > >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. > >> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was > >going to make > >> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something > >> >along the lines > >> >>of .... > >> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your > >> >letter of 31 > >> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request > >> >under this > >> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" > >> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the > >requester is not > >> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the > >> >question... Your > >> >>opinions? > >> >> > >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly > >> >> > >> >>Cheers, Dave > >> >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >> >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM > >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn > >> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >> >> >Subject: > >> >> > > >> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil > >> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful > >> >comments and on > >> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to > >> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you > >, I intend > >> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to > >Holland tomorrow > >> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments > >> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By > >> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that > >> >I did not > >> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not > >believe that this > >> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting > >process in any > >> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence > >will not be > >> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. > >> >> >thanks again > >> >> >Keith > >> >> > > >> >> >-- > >> >> >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/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >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 4274. 2008-06-04 09:23:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: mann@psu.edu date: Wed Jun 4 09:23:19 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: A couple of things to: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov Gavin, Mike, 1. This email came to CRU last night. From: Steve McIntyre [[1]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM To: alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk Subject: Farmer et al 1989 Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks, Steve McIntyre Farmer, G., Wigley, T. M. L., Jones, P. D. and Salmon, M., 1989 'Documenting and explaining recent global-mean temperature changes'. Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, Final Report to NERC, UK, Contract GR3/6565 (unpublished) CRU has just the one copy of this! We've just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations, assessments of the accuracy of the various estimates for the parameters that have to be made. It also includes discussion of the shapes (seasonal cycles) of the residual seasonal cycles you get from different types of buckets prior to WW2 relative to intakes. It also includes a factor they haven't considered at all yet - ship speed and its changes over time. This turns out to important. It has a lot more than Folland and Parker (1995). Doubt it will shut them up for long - but it will justify your faith in those doing the SST work that we have considered everything we could think of. We'll also put it up on our web site at the same time. 2. Reviews of the Holocene epic. Got this today - so a journal still working by post! Here is Henry's review. Possibly the other two might involve hand-written comments on hard copies. Will get these scanned when they arrive and send around if necessary. Dear Phil I have today posted two referees' reports to you and the verdict of accepted subject to taking account of referees' comments. These two reports do not include the report of Henry Diaz which has just been sent to you directly. Please take his comments into account too. John A Matthews Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography Editor, The Holocene Department of Geography School of the Environment and Society University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park SWANSEA SA2 8PP Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1407. 2008-06-04 09:29:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 4 09:29:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) to: Tim Osborn , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, Martin Manning has left the IPCC TSU in Boulder. The whole operation there is running down. Martin is now in NZ, for example. [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_org.html From this web page you can get their address and email. I'd use these and let them see what they can get. There should be someone looking at emails till at least September, then I think they pass the mantle to a new TSU - which may be elsewhere in the US, the UK or Switzerland. Cheers Phil At 17:13 03/06/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: Fine by me. Martin Manning would be the person at IPCC technical support unit for working group 1, assuming he is still there and it hasn't been wound up following completion of the report? Phil or Keith may know. Tim At 16:07 03/06/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, As I have not heard anything further from you subsequent to Tim's email below, I will be doing the following: A. Will send response to FOI_O8-23 as drafted & circulated B. Will acknowledge and treat Mr. Holland's letter of 27 May as a separate request. I have acknowledged the request as such, and will draft a response regarding the referral of some elements of his request to the IPCC and answering the other sections. Who would be my contact with the IPCC to which I could forward this request? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [[2]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:11 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Mcgarvie >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Dear Dave, > >I've had a look through this initial draft and it sounds fine. Keith >and I will read it in more detail, hopefully this afternoon, with >specific reference to the public interest section. > >Can we treat Holland's follow-up letter as a separate request? As >Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we >haven't yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in >confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request, >and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann? > >Best regards > >Tim > >At 17:38 27/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Gents, >>An initial draft of a response to Mr. Holland based on the >'appropriate >>limit' and s.41, Information provided in confidence. In >particular, your >>input on the public interest in not disclosing the correspondence >>received by the University in this matter would be appreciated. >> >>This is a first draft so open to comment; the bits about >right of appeal >>are mandated by the Lord Chancellor's Code of Practice. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Keith Briffa [[3]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) >> > >> >Hi Dave >> >Holland acknowledged receipt - and said he would read my >letter over >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is >unreasonable - >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter >6 authors >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests. >> >cheers >> >Keirth >> > >> >At 16:51 21/05/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>Gents, >> >>Yesterday was 2 weeks to the deadline on this matter. (3 June) >> >> >> >>Keith - any response to your letter as yet from Mr. Holland? >> >> >> >>We had discussed inquiring whether this response would satisfy Mr. >> >>Holland but I'm not sure whether we had decided who was >going to make >> >>the approach to Mr. Holland. I am happy to do something >> >along the lines >> >>of .... >> >>"I understand that Prof. Briffa has made a response to your >> >letter of 31 >> >>March. Does this in any way alter the scope of your request >> >under this >> >>Act or in fact effect your desire to continue with this request?" >> >>Pretty clear what our 'intention' is but I feel the >requester is not >> >>going to be any more upset with us for having asked the >> >question... Your >> >>opinions? >> >> >> >>Will be working on draft response to share with you shortly >> >> >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Keith Briffa [[4]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:49 PM >> >> >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn >> >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >> >Subject: >> >> > >> >> >Dave, Michael, Tim and Phil >> >> >I have now considered all your thoughtful and helpful >> >comments and on >> >> >the basis of them have decided to send the attached response to >> >> >Holland. Unless I hear anything to the contrary from you >, I intend >> >> >to send this letter as a pdf response by email to >Holland tomorrow >> >> >morning. I believe that my responses offer some personal comments >> >> >while protecting the confidentiality of author interactions. By >> >> >providing this reply I hope that it will be considered that >> >I did not >> >> >dismiss Holland's questions out of hand. I do not >believe that this >> >> >letter compromises or undermines the IPCC reporting >process in any >> >> >way and it clearly indicates that further correspondence >will not be >> >> >entered into on the matter. Hope you all agree. >> >> >thanks again >> >> >Keith >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> >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/ >> >> > >> > >> >-- >> >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/ >> > >> > >> > >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: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: [8]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: [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3203. 2008-06-04 09:47:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:47:02 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: A couple of things to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, Seems to me that CRU should charge him a fee for the service. He shouldn't be under the assumption that he has the right to demand reports be scanned in for him on a whim. CRU should require reasonable monetary compensation for the labor, effort (and postage!). It this were a colleague acting in good faith, I'd say do it at no cost. But of, course, he's not. He's not interested in the truth here, he's just looking for another way to try to undermine confidence in our science. Henry's review looks helpful and easy to deal w/. Will be interesting to see the other reviews. I guess you're going to get your moneys' worth out of your scanner, mike Phil Jones wrote: Gavin, Mike, 1. This email came to CRU last night. From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM To: [2]alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk Subject: Farmer et al 1989 Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks, Steve McIntyre Farmer, G., Wigley, T. M. L., Jones, P. D. and Salmon, M., 1989 'Documenting and explaining recent global-mean temperature changes'. Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, Final Report to NERC, UK, Contract GR3/6565 (unpublished) CRU has just the one copy of this! We've just got a new scanner for a project, so someone here is going to try this out - and scan the ~150pp. I'm doing this as this is one of the project reports that I wished I'd written up. It's got all the bucket equations, assessments of the accuracy of the various estimates for the parameters that have to be made. It also includes discussion of the shapes (seasonal cycles) of the residual seasonal cycles you get from different types of buckets prior to WW2 relative to intakes. It also includes a factor they haven't considered at all yet - ship speed and its changes over time. This turns out to important. It has a lot more than Folland and Parker (1995). Doubt it will shut them up for long - but it will justify your faith in those doing the SST work that we have considered everything we could think of. We'll also put it up on our web site at the same time. 2. Reviews of the Holocene epic. Got this today - so a journal still working by post! Here is Henry's review. Possibly the other two might involve hand-written comments on hard copies. Will get these scanned when they arrive and send around if necessary. Dear Phil I have today posted two referees' reports to you and the verdict of accepted subject to taking account of referees' comments. These two reports do not include the report of Henry Diaz which has just been sent to you directly. Please take his comments into account too. John A Matthews Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography Editor, The Holocene Department of Geography School of the Environment and Society University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park SWANSEA SA2 8PP Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 944. 2008-06-04 09:50:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:50:40 +0100 from: "Nigel Arnell" subject: QUEST-GSI and the Committee on Climate Change to: "Tim Wheeler" , "Tim Osborn" , "Terry Dawson" , "Pete Smith" , "Robert Nicholls" , "Sari Kovats" , , "Betts, Richard" , "Richard Harding" , "Richard Taylor" , "Maria Noguer" , , "Jo House" , "Evan Fraser" Dear all, As you may be aware the Committee on Climate Change ([1]http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/legislation/committee/index.htm#ro le) is charged with reviewing the government's 60% target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Central to this, of course, is an assessment of the impacts of different rates of climate change, and a key early task of the Committee is to review the evidence for impacts under different rates of climate change. This is a great opportunity for QUEST-GSI.....but unfortunately a bit early, because the first CCC report has to appear this autumn. Some of you are coming to a meeting in London next week (agenda attached for all for information), where we will have the opportunity to discuss issues with the CCC: I've already had a preliminary meeting. The CCC are still uncertain about issues such as which baseline socio-economic scenario to use, and there is great scope for us to help set their agenda. It would be extremely good if we could get some preliminary information in to the report, and provide more "definitive" projections of impacts under defined temperature changes for a likely "second edition" in 2009. How feasible would it be for your group to come up with first-approximation damage functions (showing impacts as a function of temperature) over the summer, for at least the priority subset of climate changes currently being produced by Tim Osborn? In the next few days I hope to circulate "final" "definitive" global socio-economic projections for population and GDP (I've got permission from IMAGE to use their latest IMAGE 2.3 population and GDP projections, which makes us nicely consistent with the other IMAGE data we are using and other initiatives such as the ADAM project).I can also circulate pre-preliminary examples of the sorts of things we should be producing, using some old climate scenarios with the new socio-economic characterisations. There is a possibility of some small top-up funds next year from the CCC to tailor outputs to particular CCC requirements....but this won't be clear for a while. It is quite likely that the CCC will get some climate stabilisation runs from the Hadley Centre, under certain emissions assumptions (using the simple Hadley Centre climate model, not the full GCM). There will probably be an opportunity for us to estimate impacts under these temperature pathways... Regards Nigel Professor Nigel Arnell Director Walker Institute for Climate System Research University of Reading Earley Gate Reading RG6 6BB UK +44-118-378-7392 [2]www.walker-institute.ac.uk Attachment Converted: "C:\Documents and Settings\Tim Osborn\My Documents\Eudora\Attach\CCCWorkshop_LTT_Impacts_Final.doc" 4014. 2008-06-04 10:50:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:50:37 +0200 from: Kurt Nicolussi subject: Re: Divergence to: Tom Melvin Hi Tom, thank your for your mail. The fine weather (sunny and warm) is over at the moment, but I managed to go into field yesterday before it started raining. > I criticised Walter Oberhuber's methods during his talk. He found > divergence using curve-fitting methods. He gave me a copy of his paper > (2008 - Trees). He has a good set of trees, suitable for demonstrating > the absence of divergence. Do you work with/know his group? Tomy told me about your discussion with Walter - of course, I know him a little bit - in the early 90ies, I personally worked about 1 year at the Institute of Botany, than I went back to a better job at the former Institute of High Mountain Research, and Walter got be former job at the Botany. He is more focused on physiological questions and recent time periods - at least up to now. > > Also I tried a transform with simple RCS method. The latest 140 years of > tree growth do not fit the lower growth levels of the previous > millennia. See attached. I will try other standardisation e.g. multiple > curves etc and also try and find lower climate values to produce a wider > distribution. I don't believe in simple RCS, as you know. one wish: - could you write a procedure for cruRCS, that it is possible to choose the splitting of series for multiple RCS (e.g. three RCS-curves: within +/- 1 standard deviations is one group, and the two other groups are outside of these limits) Best regards Kurt 748. 2008-06-04 13:05:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 4 13:05:54 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Some items of news! to: wigley@ucar.edu, Ben Santer , Janice Lough Dear All, 1. See below re Jean's new 5-year job - at the Gold Coast campus. 2. Dave Viner has a new job shortly - the Climate Change co-ordinator for the British Council. Yes, Dave will be Britain's image abroad! 3. [1]http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/env/events/chelseasilver Funniest thing here was that the UK Environment Minister came round and he thought the low and high emissions gardens related to the plant's ability to take up CO2! 4. -----Original Message----- From: Steve McIntyre [[2]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:09 PM To: alan.ovenden@uea.ac.uk Subject: Farmer et al 1989 Dear Sir, Can you please send me a pdf of the Farmer et al 1989, cited in Folland andPArker 1995, which, in turn is cited in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thanks, Steve McIntyre Farmer, G., Wigley, T. M. L., Jones, P. D. and Salmon, M., 1989 'Documenting and explaining recent global-mean temperature changes'. Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, Final Report to NERC, UK, Contract GR3/6565 (unpublished) Mike is going to scan this and put it on the CRU web site. This is one of those pieces of work over the years that we probably should have written up more. Had a look through it this morning and it reads very well and shows we did a lot of work and know what we're talking about when it comes to SST adjustments and buckets. Maybe it will show that idiots at CA and Roger Pielke Sr that we know what we're doing! [3]http://climatesci.org/2008/06/03/biased-view-of-the-global-average-temperauture-trend-d ata-at-real-climate/ I appear to have got my own thread in the last few days - one person thinks I should be struck off, for poor research practice! Cheers Phil Subject: FW: Fw: PENNY WONG MEDIA RELEASE - INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY - 3 JUNE 2008 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 11:11:54 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Fw: PENNY WONG MEDIA RELEASE - INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY - 3 JUNE 2008 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Thread-Index: AcjFz/Db9bRS3OkmRo2fcWjSQIMqTwAWsK3wAAAsNOA= From: "Adger Neil Prof \(ENV\)" To: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Adger Neil Prof (ENV) Sent: 04 June 2008 11:10 To: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV); 'p.d.jones@uea.ac.uk'; Watson Robert Prof (ENV); Watkinson Andrew Prof (ENV); Davies Trevor Prof (ENV) Subject: FW: Fw: PENNY WONG MEDIA RELEASE - INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY - 3 JUNE 2008 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Folks Australiaâs new Minister of Environment announced this morning the appointment of Director of the new Adaptation Research Facility (multi-million dollar consortium of Aus universityies along with CSIRO). The Director is Jean Palutikof. Great for her. And good for our networks to the Australian partners involved in this effort. Neil X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 To: Snow Barlow , Jon Barnett , David Karoly , Ian Mansergh , David Lyster , David Griggs Subject: Fw: PENNY WONG MEDIA RELEASE - INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY - 3 JUNE 2008 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] From: Ian.Mansergh@dse.vic.gov.au Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:12:42 +1000 Developments at Griffith ----- Forwarded by Ian Mansergh/DSE/VICGOV1 on 04/06/2008 09:12 AM ----- "Senator the Hon Penny Wong - media releases" Sent by: climatepublic-bounces@erin.gov.au 03/06/2008 09:17 PM To climatepublic@erin.gov.au cc Subject PENNY WONG MEDIA RELEASE - INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY - 3 JUNE 2008 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] SENATOR THE HON PENNY WONG Minister for Climate Change and Water 3 June 2008 INTERNATIONAL EXPERT TO HEAD CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH BODY Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, today welcomed the appointment of eminent international research scientist, Dr Jean Palutikof, to head the GovernmentâĂĂ´s Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. Griffith University, which hosts the facility, announced Dr PalutikofâĂĂ´s appointment today. âĂĂºDr Palutikof has more than 20 yearsâĂĂ´ experience researching the potential effects of climate change and how best to respond to those effects,âĂĂ¹ Senator Wong said. âĂĂºHer work includes a major contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeâĂĂ´s latest global assessment of climate change, with a particular focus on impacts and adaptation.âĂĂ¹ Senator Wong said the Rudd Government saw climate change as one of the greatest challenges facing Australia and was already implementing an ambitious agenda to respond to the challenge. âĂĂºAdapting to the impacts of climate change resulting from the growing level of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is a key pillar of our climate change strategy. âĂĂºWe are starting to see the effects of climate change now and the way we respond will have far-reaching impacts for our economy, our environment and our society. âĂĂºThis is not a choice between a no-cost option and an option with costs. It is a choice about whether we take responsible action now âĂì or neglect to act and face much higher costs. âĂĂºOur decision-making needs to be informed by sound science and the Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility will lead the national research effort. âĂĂºWork in this area is in its infancy and the facilityâĂĂ´s initial priorities will be to identify adaptation research priorities and establish networks to encourage cooperation among our leading researchers. âĂĂºA truly cooperative effort on this front is needed, and Dr Palutikof will play an important role in bringing together the best brains in Australia.âĂĂ¹ The GovernmentâĂĂ´s climate change strategy is built around three key pillars âĂì reducing AustraliaâĂĂ´s greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to climate change that we cannot avoid, and helping to shape a global solution. ------If you have received this transmission in error please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect of information in the e-mail or attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. ------ _______________________________________________ Minister for Climate Change and Water [4]http://www.environment.gov.au/minister âS}Ăâ[1]Â½Ă¶Ă±Â»{chÂ'â¸SçLSçNĂrĂ¯Ă½@°ë9CCââEĂ"MGĂN51N5; ĂĂĂ8'Ă¾i«ĂĂ&*N¨zfÂ¢Ă¯Â©Ă°j|öÂĂ·ĂºĂgĂÂö 'µ®ĂäwĂĂfĂ¤Ă¢ĂĂ´bÂ¾Ă³Â´Â¾Ă¢Ă¯ bsp;'~'^Ă»Ă¿Ă¶Ă®ez*Ă³*kĂ¤Â¯*zĂ¹jw¢(Ă*âĂâSâS}Ăâ[1]Â½Ă¶Ă®)jªh~+lĂĂ£*u´zöĂvĂâuĂZ¶ĂĂĂ¹Â ¢(ökĂĂ¢ÂyĂ¾8'8'Ă¾i«ĂĂ&*¬+a¢ĂmĂa¢ĂmĂĂkääĂ+mzw(û«ĂÂĂ¡ĂĂĂ(Ă*âĂh¬w´¸SçOĂN5?¦vĂ ĂĂ -- Jon Barnett Australian Research Council Fellow Department of Resource Management and Geography Melbourne Graduate School of Land and Environment University of Melbourne 3010 Victoria Australia Street address: 221 Bouverie Street ph: +61 3 8344 0819 fax: +61 3 9349 4218 [5]http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/rmg/geography/staff/barnett.html Global Environmental Change and Human Security Project [6]http://www.gechs.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5000. 2008-06-04 13:56:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:08 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Gents, The expected response from Mr. Holland. We now need to invoke our complaints/appeal procedure contained within the UEA Code of Practice for Responding to Requests ([1]https://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf). We have a multi-stage process; first, I try to resolve it informally, then it goes to the Director of ISD, and finally, it can go to an internal 'Adjudication Board' - we have never reached this latter stage on any appeal to date - we usually resolve the matter or it ends up with the ICO prior to this stage. Please note, that the ICO will not hear an appeal unless all avenues of internal complaint process have been explored/undertaken. It should also be noted that neither the Act, nor any Code of Practice mandates what sort of complaints process we should have; merely that one should be in existence, be fair, be known to the requester, and used in situations such as this. Please also note that we have to provide a time limit for response - in our Code, we give ourselves 4 weeks. (28 calendar days) I will acknowledge the complaint/appeal and will assess whether there is any room for an informal resolution of this request. I doubt that there is much room here but I'm bound to look for it... Should it go to the Director of ISD, I will prepare a briefing paper setting out the issues for him from a FOIA perspective; and then he will 'rule'. I have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Holland's response closely as yet but will do so and get back to you... there are some aspects that you may be in a better position to comment on than I (e.g.. issues of confidentiality of correspondence; amount/location of correspondence) and I would appreciate your input. Michael, once we have had an opportunity to review, worth another meeting? Cheers, Dave cc. to Jonathan Colam for information ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:14 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) Thank you. I have attached my reply David Holland ----- Original Message ----- From: [2]Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: [3]d.holland@theiet.org Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:13 PM Subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) Mr. Holland, Attached please find a response to your request received on 5 May 2008. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Attachment Converted: "C:\Documents and Settings\Tim Osborn\My Documents\Eudora\Attach\CRU03.pdf" 4828. 2008-06-04 14:52:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:52:47 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098 - Decision on Manuscript # JOC-08-0098] to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, Good news! I did manage to resubmit our revised manuscript yesterday. Today I received a "conditional acceptance" decision from Glenn McGregor at IJoC (see forwarded email). Prof. McGregor's decision was based on the original version of our paper and on the first round of review comments from Reviewers 1 and 2. Prof. McGregor's email noted that: "I am very happy to grant conditional acceptance of the paper, subject to you making satisfactory revisions as clarified below. These revisions are minor, in the sense that there are no major recalculations or major analyses required, but there may be less-major analyses needed and there are a number of important revisions to the text that are necessary." I note that we've already made these "minor revisions". The statement that "there or no major recalculations or major analyses required" was not quite accurate! I'm hoping that IJoC will be able to reach a final editorial decision on our paper within the next few weeks. 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-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:47:39 -0700 Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m54JlZlv029304 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:47:38 -0700 X-Attachments: * JOC-production-requ.doc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5310"; a="18783910" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,591,1204531200"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="18783910" Received: from nsziron-2.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.82]) by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2008 12:47:37 -0700 X-Attachments: * JOC-production-requ.doc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5310"; a="37434614" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,591,1204531200"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="37434614" Received: from uranus.scholarone.com ([170.107.181.135]) by nsziron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2008 12:47:36 -0700 Received: from tss1be0007 (tss1be0007 [10.237.148.33]) by uranus.scholarone.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8713FB28670 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:47:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <365267811.1212608854092.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0007> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:47:34 -0400 (EDT) From: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz To: santer1@llnl.gov Subject: JOC-08-0098 - Decision on Manuscript # JOC-08-0098 Errors-To: masmith@wiley.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_4889_365188109.1212608854076" X-Errors-To: masmith@wiley.co.uk Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com 04-Jun-2008 Dear Dr Santer Manuscript # JOC-08-0098 entitled "Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere" which you submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, has been reviewed. The comments of the referee(s), all of whom are leading international experts in this field, are included at the bottom of this letter. If the reviewer submitted comments as an attachment this will only be visible via your Author Centre. It will not be attached to this email. Log in to Manuscript Central, go to your Author Centre, find your manuscript in the "Manuscripts with Decisions" queue. Click on the Decision Letter link. Within the Decision letter is a further link to the reviewer attachment. I am very happy to grant conditional acceptance of the paper, subject to you making satisfactory revisions as clarified below. These revisions are minor, in the sense that there are no major recalculations or major analyses required, but there may be less-major analyses needed and there are a number of important revisions to the text that are necessary. Please review the attached document listing the file requirements for your revision. In your revisions, please address all of the points made by each reviewer, make suitable edits to the manuscript, and include a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment with your response. I will study your responses and determine if the edits were handled satisfactorily. I would like to receive the revised manuscript as soon as is convenient, but with a deadline about 2 months from now. This should be sufficient time given the minor revisions, but please communicate with me via email if you need an extension of the deadline. I feel confident that, pending careful revisions as outlined above, I will be able to publish your paper in the International Journal of Climatology. You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Centre. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." When submitting your revised manuscript, you must respond to the comments made by the referee(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. IMPORTANT: Please make sure you closely follow the instructions for acceptable files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript, please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the revised file(s). Please remember that the publishers will not accept a manuscript unless accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Please go to: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/4735/nscta.pdf The Copyright Transfer Form and the Permissions Form should be scanned and uploaded with your submission to Manuscript Central, designated as "Supplemental Material not for review". If you do not have access to a scanner, further instructions will be provided upon the acceptance of your paper. Forms should not be sent to the editorial office. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Climatology. I look forward to receiving your revision. Sincerely, Prof. Glenn McGregor Editor, International Journal of Climatology Referee(s)' Comments to Author: Referee: 1 Comments to the Author See the attached Referee: 2 Comments to the Author See attached file Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\JOC-production-requ3.doc" 474. 2008-06-04 16:15:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 4 16:15:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: we arrived in MOHC to: Qingxiang, Here's some comments on the paper. I stopped half way through. I need to read the analysis section more carefully and I don't have more time today. I will look later. In the mean time here is where I have got to. I need to understand your logic at times. I think I understand why you are using the NCEP data from 1979. The text still comes over as though you are suggesting that UHIs and land use and land cover changes account for most of the changes. I don't think this is the case, so you need to clearer at the beginning what your main conclusions are. Cheers Phil At 18:25 02/06/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Thank you for the good news from AGU. We find some difficulties to use internet here in Exeter. so we are checking emails in the Central library in Exeter. Yes, we spent about 8 hours in London, and visted British Meseum, Bakinham Palace and Oxford street, and bought something for the family people, and then got the train to the respective destinations. Our journey seemed pretty good. I nearly finished the urbanization paper (draft) during these days, I will send to you, I have inclded you as a coauthor, Please tell me about your thoughts. We need to go now. cheers Qingxiang Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2818. 2008-06-04 16:17:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Richardson David Prof \\(BIO\\)" , "Clegg Simo n Prof \\(ENV\\)" , "Dorling Stephen Dr \\(ENV\\)" , "Turner Kerry Prof \\(ENV\\)" , "Adger Neil Prof \\(ENV\\)" date: Wed Jun 4 16:17:17 2008 from: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" subject: RE: External award for UEA/ENV/CRU!!! to: "Ogden Annie Ms \\(MAC\\)" , "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \\(ENV\\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \\(ENV\\)" , "Jordan Andy Prof \\(ENV\\)" Annie, personal view - i dislike the word green. In some peoples eyes it puts us at the less rigorous end of environmental activity. Trevor --- original message --- From: "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" Subject: RE: External award for UEA/ENV/CRU!!! Date: 4th June 2008 Time: 3:51:08 pm Dear all, Have just drafted the following release. Will send to the locals and to the THE - but will also mention to the environment correspondents for info - though they may not actually publish anything. Are you happy with it and for Jacquie to be the person quoted? I thought it might be more comfortable than asking you to blow your own trumpet, Phil... I'd like to send it out first thing tomorrow so please let me know soonest if any problems. Will put on our website - and I guess CRU and ENV will want to use it for ENV web. Best, Annie CRU sets green agenda The University of East Anglia – in particular its Climatic Research Unit - is the only university to be included in a list of the key bodies that have set the green agenda in the UK over the past thirty years, according to an influential regular policy briefing for business professionals. The ENDS (Environmental Data Services) Report is celebrating its 30th anniversary with a fact-packed special supplement reviewing the fast changing UK environmental scene over the past three decades. In it, it outlines the most important people, ideas and policies during this period. Among the government bodies, the pressure groups and the businesses, the supplement names just one university: ‘The University of East Anglia (and its Climate Research Unit)’. It cites Professor Sir David King, the UK government’s former chief scientific adviser, who described the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA to be “the strongest in the worldâ€. And it says the Climatic Research Unit, established in 1972, “is widely recognised for navigating the study of climate change out of an academic backwater and has set the agenda for the major research effort in this area ever since.†Among the most influential individuals who have set the green agenda, it includes University of East Anglia Professor of Environmental Sciences, Bob Watson (Defra’s chief scientific adviser and former head of the IPCC and climate adviser to the Clinton administration), and the late David Pearce. Formerly of the University of East Anglia’s Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, David Pearce was a pioneer of environmental economics. “The ENDS Report is a highly influential publication and we are delighted to be singled out in this way for inclusion in this list,†said Professor Jacquie Burgess, Head of the School of Environmental Sciences. “Our Climatic Research Unit was investigating climate change before most people woke up to the challenges we face – and continues to be the leader in its field.†------------------------------- 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: Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:43 PM >To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Jordan Andy Prof (ENV) >Cc: Richardson David Prof (BIO); Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); >Clegg Simon Prof (ENV); Dorling Stephen Dr (ENV); Ogden Annie >Ms (MAC); Turner Kerry Prof (ENV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: External award for UEA/ENV/CRU!!! > >Having just read the report on a train journey back from >London - we *are* the only academic institution mentioned in >the whole 'ENDS at 30' document. Not bad! >Jacquie > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 04 June 2008 10:11 >To: Jordan Andy Prof (ENV); Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) >Cc: Richardson David Prof (BIO); Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); >Clegg Simon Prof (ENV); Dorling Stephen Dr (ENV); Ogden Annie >Ms (MAC); Turner Kerry Prof (ENV); Adger Neil Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: External award for UEA/ENV/CRU!!! > > > Annie, > The link is >http://www.endsreport.com/index.cfm?action=information.birthday > > You need to download the whole pdf to get the UEA page. The part Andy > highlighted is on p29. We are just ahead of Tesco! I think >we are the only > academic institute mentioned. > > Bob is on p21 along with David Pearce. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 09:19 04/06/2008, Andrew Jordan wrote: >>I am very pleased to report that the highly influential ENDS >>(Environmental Data Services) Report >>(special issue - 'ENDS at 30') has included "UEA (and its Climatic >>Research Unit)" in its list of >>the top 20 most influential environmental organisations over the >>last 30 years, alongside such >>august bodies as the RCEP, the IPCC, the Met Office and >>Greenpeace. Those listed were "considered >>to be real wave makers over the past three decades." CRU is >>recognised for "navigating the study of >>climate change out of an academic backwater and has set the agenda >>for the major research effort in >>this area ever since". >> >>ENV's Bob Watson and the late David Pearce of CSERGE make it into >>the top 20 most influential >>people, alongside inter alia John Houghton, Jonathon Porritt and >>Barbara Young. >> >>I have chapter and verse here if anyone wants to use it in their >>publicity work. >> >>Cheers >> >>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/jordana >> >>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 >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------------- > > > 2526. 2008-06-04 17:07:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 4 17:07:25 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: "Palutikof, Jean" Jean Sorry to bring you back down to earth! Can you read the attached - a glass of wine would help, perhaps several. Keith got an initial request which developed in CRU01.pdf. We then got the second one CRU02 which was replied to with the refusal letter (the incorrect date was changed before this went). We have just got CRU03. What Keith and Tim did was to email all the CLAs and LAs on Ch 6, to ask if they would be happy for Keith/Tim to send emails relating to Ch 6 discussions. They all refused, hence the refusal letter. What we're now considering doing is to refer him to WG1 and/or IPCC in Geneva. I know that there is likely only Melinda Tignor left in Boulder. Susan changed her email address a few months ago. John Mitchell did respond to a request from Holland. John had conveniently lost many emails, but he did reply with a few. Keith and Tim have moved all their emails from all the named people off their PCs and they are all on a memory stick. So any thoughts on how to respond? TSU for WG2 was mentioned on the first request! As you and Tom know Keith and I are nowhere near the world's best for structured archiving - working as we do on sedimentary sequencing! Cheers Phil X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:42:50 +0100 To: Phil Jones From: Tim Osborn Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:08 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal Thread-Index: AcjGNBtb+4Ihq3LkQMeLkdRU5NTvsAADEkAg From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" To: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Cc: "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Gents, The expected response from Mr. Holland. We now need to invoke our complaints/appeal procedure contained within the UEA Code of Practice for Responding to Requests (<[1]https://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf>https://www1.uea .ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf). We have a multi-stage process; first, I try to resolve it informally, then it goes to the Director of ISD, and finally, it can go to an internal 'Adjudication Board' - we have never reached this latter stage on any appeal to date - we usually resolve the matter or it ends up with the ICO prior to this stage. Please note, that the ICO will not hear an appeal unless all avenues of internal complaint process have been explored/undertaken. It should also be noted that neither the Act, nor any Code of Practice mandates what sort of complaints process we should have; merely that one should be in existence, be fair, be known to the requester, and used in situations such as this. Please also note that we have to provide a time limit for response - in our Code, we give ourselves 4 weeks. (28 calendar days) I will acknowledge the complaint/appeal and will assess whether there is any room for an informal resolution of this request. I doubt that there is much room here but I'm bound to look for it... Should it go to the Director of ISD, I will prepare a briefing paper setting out the issues for him from a FOIA perspective; and then he will 'rule'. I have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Holland's response closely as yet but will do so and get back to you... there are some aspects that you may be in a better position to comment on than I (e.g.. issues of confidentiality of correspondence; amount/location of correspondence) and I would appreciate your input. Michael, once we have had an opportunity to review, worth another meeting? Cheers, Dave cc. to Jonathan Colam for information ---------- From: David Holland [[2]mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:14 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) Thank you. I have attached my reply David Holland ----- Original Message ----- From: <[3]mailto:David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk>Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) To: <[4]mailto:d.holland@theiet.org>d.holland@theiet.org Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:13 PM Subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) Mr. Holland, Attached please find a response to your request received on 5 May 2008. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. Cheers, Dave Palmer <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 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: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5161. 2008-06-04 17:22:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Paul Mason" , "Rupa Kumar Kolli" , "Valery Detemmerman" date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:22:27 +0200 from: "William Westermeyer" subject: World Bank project to: "Phil Jones" Dear Phil, We have struggled to find an alternative date for the Preparatory Meeting for our World Bank project. It looks as though we will have to go with October 20-22 as the dates for the meeting. Laban Ogallo, who initially indicated he would not be available on those dates now says that he can be available. Some others who don't appear on our Doodle poll are also likely to be available on those dates, so it looks like that time slot is the best we can do. You have indicated that you are unlikely to be available then. I hope you might have some flexibility but would understand if you do not. In any case, even if you are not able to join us for the preparatory meeting, that would not exclude you from participating in the first, data-centered workshop (although dates for that have not been set yet). Please let me know if have some flexibility and/or if you would still be interested in the first workshop. Regards, Bill 4984. 2008-06-05 10:34:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:34:08 +0100 from: John Finn subject: RE: Thanks to: Phil Jones Phil thanks for the reply. I'll check out the sources you mention. John Finn ___________________________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:56:57 +0100 To: john.finn@hotmail.co.uk From: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: Re: John, Any tropospheric aerosol forcing (mainly sulphates) may affect the climate more locally than further afield. With climate models run with just sulphate aerosol forcing (in eastern Nortn America, Europe and China) there are effects locally, but also effects downstream a long way from the source. The forcing is regionally specific, but the effects can be more widespread - at least within the NH. So your logic about where the greatest cooling might be may not be correct, but then no-one will know the true answer. Warming/cooling trends may be great in polar regions, but variability is greater there. This means that the trend may not be as significant as an area more in the mid or low latitudes, so it is important to consider the significance of the trends, rather than the magnitude. The area of the polar region is also much smaller than regions of the same latitude belts nearer the equator. Have you looked at the IPCC AR4 report - Ch 2 on forcing and the modelling chapters? The chapters are on-line at the WG1 web site. See Figure 2.12. Aerosols have a direct effect on climate which tends to be more local, but there is an indirect effect (through clouds) that causes effects further afield. A number of models produce a large indirect effect over the Southern Oceans, but it is difficult to assess this as there are few observations there. Cheers Phil At 12:35 03/06/2008, you wrote: Dear Professor Jones Commenting on the recently published paper which claims to explain the ~1945 sea temperature anomaly, you are reported as saying the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide Theres something bothering me about this statement. To illustrate Id like to draw your attention to another paper (Climate Change over past Millenia) by Mann and Jones (i.e. you). In Section 5.1.4 you write Compared to greenhouse gas forcing, sulphate aerosol forcing is far more uncertain, principally because of limited understanding of the radiative properties of the aerosols and their effects on clouds. This forcing is also REGIONALLY SPECIFIC and must be estimated from past fossil fuel use (see, e.g., Crowley [2000, and references therein] for further discussion). Note my emphasis on regionally specific. From which I take it that, due to the short residence time of aerosols in the atmosphere, the greatest climatic effect (i.e. cooling) due to aerosols will be close to the source of the emissions. A fact that is supported by several other papers. For example from Levitus et al (2005), we have The second is that the natural and anthropogenic aerosols are not well-mixed geographically and can have a substantial effect on regional warming rates Here Levitus is giving the second of 3 reasons for non-uniform heating of the oceans. My understanding is, therefore, that if sulphate aerosols cause cooling then the greatest cooling will occur in the industrialised regions which produce the aerosols. I hope my logic is correct here. So now consider the following data which is from the GISS (land-only) surface temperature record. 64N-90N -0.93 44N-64N -0.17 24N-44N -0.21 24N-EQU -0.09 The figures show the total cooling for each latitude band for the 32 year period between 1944 and 1975. Note that the cooling is greatest (by far) in the latitudes north of 64 deg and that cooling tends to be less as we get closer to the equator. This is almost a mirror image of the warming since 1975, i.e. greatest warming at northerly latitudes and less at the equator. But the important point is that the mid latitudes which include the big post-war industrialised regions (US and Europe) experienced much less cooling than the non-industrialised Arctic regions. This, to me, doesnt seem to square with the aerosol cooling theory. Thanks for any help you can give. John Finn ___________________________________________________________________________________ Get 5GB of online storage for free! [1]Get it 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ______________________________________________________________________________________ [2]Get Started! 2236. 2008-06-05 12:21:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:21:21 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: divergence paper to: Tom Melvin >Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:35:05 +0100 (BST) >Subject: divergence paper >From: "Tim Osborn" >To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, > p.jones@uea.ac.uk >Cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >Reply-To: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8 > >Apparently Craig Loehle has a "paper analyzing the divergence problem has >been accepted in Climatic Change". Might be worth trying to get a >preprint, as Clim Change is rather slow in actually appearing. > >Tim -- 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/ 3767. 2008-06-05 14:57:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "Mike Webb" date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:57:58 +0100 from: "Sasha Leigh" subject: CORRECTION: Rapid Finale Event to: , , , , , , , , "Henry Elderfield" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Jonathan Gregory" , , , , , "Grant Bigg" , , , , , , , , , , , "Tim Osborn" , The Rapid Finale is on Thursday 26th June, not 16th. Apologies, Sasha ********************************************* Sasha Leigh Science Programmes Officer Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1EU 01793 442 634 ********************************************* -- 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. Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:46:34 +0100 From: "Sasha Leigh" To: "Eric Wolff" , "Ian Fairchild" , "Jonathon Bamber" , "Paul Valdes" , "Sandy Harrison" , "Cathy Johnson" , "Jochem Marotzke" , "Simon Tett" , "Henry Elderfield" , "Nick McCave" , "Peter Haugan" , "Sandy Tudhope" , "Christopher Pain" , "Martin Visbeck" , "Richard Williams" , "Keith Haines" , "Eric Guilyardi" , "Brian Hoskins" , "David Marshall" , "Richard Wood" , "Craig Wallace" , "Peter Challenor" , "Sheldon Bacon" , "Andrew Willmott" , "Christopher Hughes" , "Jonathan Gregory" , "Julia Slingo" , "Rowan Sutton" , "John Lowe" , "John Lowe" , "Grant Bigg" , "Harry Bryden" , "Neil Wells" , "Peter Challenor" , "Simon Josey" , "Bill Austin" , "Jonathan Holmes" , "Andy Watson" , "Keith Briffa" , "Mike Hulme" , "Mark Chapman" , "Tim Osborn" , "Lloyd Keigwin" Cc: "Meric Srokosz" , "V Byfield" , "Mike Webb" Subject: Rapid Finale Event Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Dear All, Just a quick reminder about the Rapid Finale Event being held at the Royal Society on Thursday 16th June. I very much hope to see you all there. You can register at: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/rapid/events/080626/regform.aspx Please feel free to advertise this around your respective departments and institutes. I look forward to seeing you there, if not also in Cambridge at our last Annual Science meeting. Please contact me if you want any further information about either of these events. All the best Sasha ********************************************* Sasha Leigh Science Programmes Officer Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1EU 01793 442 634 ********************************************* 4885. 2008-06-05 16:35:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley date: Thu Jun 5 16:35:17 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Some items of news! to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, I'd not read the copy I printed out yesterday. I just saw Houghton's picture. Getting these FOI requests over the last couple of years has made me realize more what you went through and Mike Mann. I was aware, but when you get the emails yourself it hits home that little bit harder. Pachauri won't bother with these sorts of things. Susan offered John Mitchell some advice, but that was all. She did get tough with McIntyre when he began requesting in press/submitted papers that were referred to in AR4 drafts - saying he couldn't do an adequate review without seeing them. He stopped once she threatened to remove him from the reviewer's list. Holland is a retired engineer, and he sends numerous letters and emails to DEFRA and MOHC and the Minister and his local MP. Attached is the sort of missive he sent to the Garnaut review (an Australian review similar to the Stern Report). No need to read this - you will get the flavour fairly quickly. The unfortunate thing about all this is that they keep peddling the same sort of thing that a few gullible people get taken in. Keenan - the guy who accused Wei Chyung Wang of fraud doesn't yet seem to know that SUNY have exonerated WCW. SUNY may not have told him yet. I doubt he will take his web page down when he hears. A lot of people seem to think that because you've been accused of something, there must be something to warrant the accusation. Very few , including many climate scientists seem to understand the amount of mischief making out there - as we all know all too clearly. Cheers Phil At 16:05 05/06/2008, Ben Santer wrote: Dear Phil, In the "ENDS" piece about John Houghton, I saw that he was praised for defending the IPCC against allegations of "scientific cleansing". That's a nice bit of revisionist history. Actually, the IPCC did relatively little to defend me. Tom and I did nost of the defending... Best regards, Ben Phil Jones wrote: Tom, Ben, Jean's email is "Palutikof, Jean" There is also another piece of news [1]http://www.endsreport.com/index.cfm?action=information.birthday on p29. You will need to download the whole pdf to get p29. CRU/UEA is just above Tesco! There are other pieces about Bob Watson, John Houghton, Met Office and others. An annoying email from yesterday is attached! We will likely be replying in a similar vein to our earlier, saying emails between CLAs and LAs for Ch 6 were in confidence. We have emails from all in Ch 6 to say the group doesn't want emails made available. We will refer Holland to WG1 in Boulder - knowing that there is likely only one person there keeping things ticking over till the TSU closes - which it may have. IPCC will have to alter those work guidelines to stop this sort of thing next time. I'll be raising it with whoever is the next Susan. Decision in early Sept - news is it will be one of Tom Karl, Ram, Brian Hoskins or Thomas Stocker. What will amuse is the paragraph about structured archiving. As you both know Keith and me work on the sedimentary sequence approach to filing! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1961. 2008-06-05 20:56:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:56:12 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: RE: Review Comments on the Wengen paper to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil: Good news! Thanks again for your leadership on this. Please note that I am in the process of relocation from New York and establishing residence in Colorado now through the rest of June, and will be travelling some also in July. Thus, my availability will be limited now until the beginning of August when I start at NOAA-Paleo. However, I won't be dropping off the face of the planet and will be checking mail when possible. Please let me know if you have thoughts of things I will need to attend to, and I will do all I can to meet those responsibilities as soon as I can. I don't see any directions that way below, which is why I want to check. Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Asst. Professor of Environmental Studies Alfred University 607-587-8779 (home, ending 6/12/08) 607-664-7031 (cell, continuing through and after 6/12/08) 22 Reynolds St. Alfred, NY 14802 ________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 6/5/2008 8:18 AM To: Christoph Kull; bo@gfy.ku.dk; thompson.4@osu.edu; EWWO@bas.ac.uk; 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; Brendan Buckley; Hugues Goosse Cc: larry.williams@targetedgrowth.com; Thorsten Kiefer; Naresh Kumar Subject: Review Comments on the Wengen paper Dear All (especially Peck!), Attached are three sets of reviews of the paper - 2 in the pdf file and one in the small doc file. As you'll be able to see, there isn't that much to do and the reviews have been good. All three reviewers seem to be in awe of the group! I've had a brief discussion with Keith as to who should do what. You're all welcome to help but I only think most of you will need go through the revised version when we get that out - hopefully asap. John Matthews is still hopeful of a 2008 publication date, and you'll see we won't be going out for any further reviews - just John checking. Many of the comments relate to the tree-ring section and Keith will deal with these. They involve some re-organization and some additional refs on dendro isotope work. The coral and isotope sections get praised for organization - so well done! I'll need some help with the one coral comment on 'vital effects', so can Janice, Kim and Sandy work on that. I think it only needs a few sentences and maybe extra refs. I know some of you are in Trieste next week, so maybe you can work on it there. I'll work on the documentary section a bit and liaise with Juerg. This shouldn't involve much extra work. I'll also look at the borehole section together with what was in Ch 6 of AR4. The major bit of new text we need is on the high-res varves and laminated lake records, so this is why I highlighted Peck. They aren't used in large-area high-freq climate reconstructions, so emphasis there and to a few key review papers. Is this doable in the next couple of weeks, Peck? I don't think more than a page or two is required. Related to the issue of the different proxies use or potential use in high-freq reconstructions, I'll work on trying to bring that out in the Introduction. I'll bring out the issues of the maturity of the different proxy disciplines. Sections 3 and 4 just seem to need some minor wording changes and some clarification - possibly in a revised introduction. We're hoping that Tim here will be able to do that. Note that although the reviewer suggested dropping the forcing section, John Matthews would like that kept. In conclusion, we are nearly there. CRU will be able to find the colour costs envisaged. To those in Trieste - enjoy the week and I hope it will as fruitful as Wengen was. If anyone is going to be out of contact during the second half of June and early July can you let me know. I've reattached the submission as a word file. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3350. 2008-06-06 16:05:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 16:05:08 +0100 from: John Haslett subject: SUPRAnet Session on Palaeoclimate modelling and statistical methods to: Caitlin Buck , Edouard Bard , Paula Reimer , Mark Bateman , David Richards , Mel Knight , James Annan , Michel Crucifix , Julia Hargreaves , Gabi Hegerl , Michael Evans , Stephen Brooks , Nicki Whitehouse , Regine Röthlisberger , Atte Korhola , Barbara Wohlfarth , Keith Bennett , Maarten Blaauw , "Stephen T. Jackson" , Brian Huntley , Christoph Spoetl , Dan Charman , Lasse Holmström , Clive Anderson , Caitlin Buck , Michael Goldstein , Andrew Millard , Andrew Parnell , Jonathan Rougier , Marian Scott , Eleanor Stillman , Rob Wilson , David Lowe , Keith Briffa , Tamsin Edwards , Peter Challenor , Philip Brohan , Katy Klauenberg , Richard Wilkinson , John-Paul Gosling , Julie M Jones , Hanna Sundqvist , Jo Brown , Oliver Heiri , Bo Li , William Austin , Lindsay Collins , Luke Skinner , Gerrit Lohmann , Michael Salter-Townshend Dear all This mail concerns the Session Wed 14:30 - 16:30 Palaeoclimate modelling and statistical methods I'm mailing it to all, even though some of you will have interests focussed on other parts of the meeting. I'm not sure that I have an up-to-date sub-list. Jonty Rougier and I have been charged with structuring this part of the workshop. The following are proposals. We (JH, JR) would appreciate constructive criticism. We anticipate some informal discussion on the Tuesday evening where we can finalise these proposals. We make these proposals in the context of the overall workshop commitment to deliver 'product'; see below. We note that this will be the last of the formal sessions. It will have been preceded by several sessions on 'evidence from' various sources. But here the focus will be more explicitly on the workshop theme "uncertainty in palaeoclimate reconstruction". There will however have been almost no previous discussion on modelling per se. We propose thus to structure the session by using the first hour to provide 'tutorials' on some basic issues, and then to use the remaining hour to identify SOME of the open issues. We would be interested to hear from people who might be able to play a role here, recalling that we do want to finish the week with concrete next steps As I understand it, there remains quite a lot of flexibility in how we use our time, especially on the Thursday JH Overall, it seems to us that there are two big inter-related questions for THIS session: Why is it so hard to compare proxy based reconstructions with those from physical models as in GCMs? How and where can we best use GCMs and proxies jointly to clarify and reduce uncertainties about the palaeoclimate? Proposal 1 20 min tutorial on GCMs, barely touching on uncertainty 2 20 min tutorial on modelling 'system uncertainty', given several sources of information, each with its own uncertainty, including GCMs 3 10 min on current work at the interface of proxy reconstructions and GCMs. This will be followed by a less formal, but nevertheless structured, discussion on 'open questions' and 'the way forward'. For this latter part of the session, we hope to identify a VERY few people who will be prepared to lead discussion and to contribute to 'product'. Such people might each have prepared a VERY short (<5 mins) presentation. Open questions include: ......... Recall that two forms of 'product' have already been identified: 1) a position paper on quantifying and modelling uncertainty in palaeoclimate reconstruction intended for a major journal such as Nature Geoscience and 2) plans for several (c. 4) funding proposals to be written over the 6-9 months following the meeting (for which we have extra travel funds). John Haslett E-mail John.Haslett@tcd.ie Professor Phone +353 1 8961114 (direct) Department of Statistics +353 1 8961767 (sec) School of Computer Science Fax +353 1 6770711 and Statistics Room 146 Trinity College Dublin 2,Ireland WWW: http://www.tcd.ie/Statistics/JHpersonal/research.htm 4255. 2008-06-08 07:32:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:32:00 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: request for some additional info. to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel room in Trieste--the weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important! Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I'm guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had something to do w/ that ;) Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things: 1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value of "N" where "N" is the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored that have more than N citations. N=40 (i.e., an individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending--I think it would be useful is really sealing the case. 2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page bibliography. In my nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the diverse areas where you've made major contributions, and I think its well known and obvious to many that two of these are instrumental data and paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on climate w/ both models and observations. For example, your early Nature papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81 seem to be among the earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don't have copies of the papers, so can't read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me. My suggestion is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection and include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area including the two early Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your later work w/ Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of your work in this area isn't as primary author, but I do think it would be helpful to show this side of your research, and I'd like to incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your efforts have been to developments in areas such as D&A). You could still fit this onto 2 pages by making the font smaller for the references (10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the headings at 11 pt, and if necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface temperature record references to make space for the additional references. Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or even just the text for the abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the narrative of my letter. thanks for any help, mike p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here to Trieste, I was really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and many others here). I hope all is well w/ his daughter. -- 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: [1]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 [2]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm 1384. 2008-06-08 18:12:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:12:28 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: request for some additional info. to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk p.s. Phil--there's no rush on this. the package isn't due until the end of the month. And I don't really need the whole papers or even the abstract-mostly I was just interested in what the two early papers w/ Wigley were about. were they data analysis, model data/comparison, etc? I just though it would be useful to mention that you did work on the issue of anthropogenic climate change well quite early on, which is what the titles of the papers seem to suggest. but I didn't want to mention w/out having some idea of what the papers were actually about. so if you could describe to me in just a short sentence each, that'd be great... [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mike, Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville. On 1, this is what people call the H index. I've tried working this out and there is software for it on the web of science. Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through and deleted those in journals I'd never heard of and got 52. I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s, so go with 52. I don't have pdfs of the early papers. I won't be able to do anything for a few days either. When do you want this in, by the way? Can you email me the piece I wrote for you, as I don't have this on my lap top. I can then pick it up tomorrow at some airport. The D&A work has always been with others. There is another area on hydrology that I omitted as well. Keith's daughter is OK. She had the operation last Tuesday. He should be over in Birmingham this weekend. Cheers Phil Hi Phil, I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel room in Trieste--the weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important! Surprisingly, Ben is not yet, nor am I. But David Thompson is (quite young for one of these). I'm guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had something to do w/ that ;) Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things: 1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value of "N" where "N" is the number of papers an individual authored/co-authored that have more than N citations. N=40 (i.e., an individual has published at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind figuring out that number and sending--I think it would be useful is really sealing the case. 2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page bibliography. In my nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the diverse areas where you've made major contributions, and I think its well known and obvious to many that two of these are instrumental data and paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on climate w/ both models and observations. For example, your early Nature papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81 seem to be among the earliest efforts to try to do this (though I don't have copies of the papers, so can't read them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me. My suggestion is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection and include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area including the two early Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your later work w/ Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of your work in this area isn't as primary author, but I do think it would be helpful to show this side of your research, and I'd like to incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your efforts have been to developments in areas such as D&A). You could still fit this onto 2 pages by making the font smaller for the references (10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the headings at 11 pt, and if necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface temperature record references to make space for the additional references. Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or even just the text for the abstracts, it would be great to have a little more detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the narrative of my letter. thanks for any help, mike p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here to Trieste, I was really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and many others here). I hope all is well w/ his daughter. -- 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 2419. 2008-06-09 15:40:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:40:59 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: Keith Briffa ,Phil Jones Hi Keith and Phil, I guess we ought to respond to Dave Palmer's request with some detail about Holland's appeal, in terms of IPCC rule and the location of the material he wants. Rather than sending multiple emails to Dave, shall we reply jointly? The appeal is attached. Here are my thoughts: (1) IPCC rules. The IPCC rules quoted by Holland refer to "written expert and government review comments". These are specific items defined by the IPCC (the comments explicitly solicited by the IPCC on the various drafts of the reports). These specific items referred to are already published on the web: They do not refer to other informal correspondence that we may have entered into during the writing process. Therefore the IPCC rules do not require the disclosure of this informal correspondence and do not, therefore, override the wishes of these correspondents for their emails to remain confidential. (2) Amount/location of correspondence. We haven't looked for the material. Some will likely have been archived, some will likely have been deleted, some will likely be mixed in with other emails and would need to be searched for. Does that sound ok? Didn't want to spend much (more) time on this, so thought something short would be ok. Cheers Tim >Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal >Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:08 +0100 >From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" > >Gents, >The expected response from Mr. Holland. We now need to invoke our >complaints/appeal procedure contained within the UEA Code of >Practice for Responding to Requests >(https://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf). >We have a multi-stage process; first, I try to resolve it >informally, then it goes to the Director of ISD, and finally, it can >go to an internal 'Adjudication Board' - we have never reached this >latter stage on any appeal to date - we usually resolve the matter >or it ends up with the ICO prior to this stage. Please note, that >the ICO will not hear an appeal unless all avenues of internal >complaint process have been explored/undertaken. >It should also be noted that neither the Act, nor any Code of >Practice mandates what sort of complaints process we should have; >merely that one should be in existence, be fair, be known to the >requester, and used in situations such as this. Please also note >that we have to provide a time limit for response - in our Code, we >give ourselves 4 weeks. (28 calendar days) > >I will acknowledge the complaint/appeal and will assess whether >there is any room for an informal resolution of this request. I >doubt that there is much room here but I'm bound to look for it... >Should it go to the Director of ISD, I will prepare a briefing paper >setting out the issues for him from a FOIA perspective; and then he >will 'rule'. > >I have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Holland's response >closely as yet but will do so and get back to you... there are some >aspects that you may be in a better position to comment on than I >(e.g.. issues of confidentiality of correspondence; amount/location >of correspondence) and I would appreciate your input. Michael, once >we have had an opportunity to review, worth another meeting? > >Cheers, Dave > >cc. to Jonathan Colam for information > > >---------- >From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:14 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Thank you. > >I have attached my reply > >David Holland >----- Original Message ----- >From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >To: d.holland@theiet.org >Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:13 PM >Subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > > >Mr. Holland, > >Attached please find a response to your request received on 5 May >2008. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. > >Cheers, Dave Palmer > ><> >____________________________ >David Palmer >Information Policy Officer >University of East Anglia >Norwich, England >NR4 7TJ > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CRU031.pdf" 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 382. 2008-06-09 18:49:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:49:08 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Symposium for Tom to: santer1@llnl.gov, "Kevin E. Trenberth" Dear Ben, Tom Wigley I presume ....? I think it's fine by me, to use some of your Fellowship funds towards the symposium costs, there is quite some leeway in how you spend the funds on this award. However, there are permissions that LLNL needs to seek ... if a lab holds a WS using DOE funds (the threshhold is 10K, but please doublecheck). You'd need to provide the site office with details of the WS objectives and fill out some forms. Not sure how onerous it'd be. Best wishes, Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:29 PM To: 'Kevin E. Trenberth' Cc: 'Philip D. Jones'; Bamzai, Anjuli Subject: Symposium for Tom Dear Kevin, I spoke to Tom yesterday regarding the idea of a one-day scientific symposium in his honor, to be held at NCAR. I think Tom is now receptive to this idea. I believe that such a symposium would be a very appropriate way of celebrating Tom's seminal scientific contributions - not only to our own field, but also to aqueous geochemistry and karst hydrology. Tom taught me how to be a scientist. He had - and continues to have - an enormous influence on my own scientific career and on the careers of a many others. It would be fitting and appropriate to try to bring together Tom's colleagues at NCAR and the larger "family" of scientists with whom Tom has collaborated over the years (people like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Sarah Raper, Tim Osborn, and Tim Atkinson at CRU; myself, Karl Taylor, and Peter Gleckler at PCMDI, Jae Edmonds, Rich Richels, Steve Smith, Mike MacCracken, Bob Charlson, etc.) Tom and I discussed possible dates for such a symposium. His preference would be to have it about a year from now at NCAR. I would be very happy to take the lead in planning this event. I have not yet approached Anjuli regarding the possibility of using some of my DOE funding (from my DOE Distinguished Scientist Fellowship) to provide some level of financial support for the planned symposium. I am copying Anjuli on this email, and hope I'll be able to clarify this issue soon. At the moment, I just wanted to check whether you (and NCAR) are agreeable to the idea of holding this symposium at NCAR. 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 2356. 2008-06-10 12:42:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:42:40 +1200 from: Kesten Green subject: Global warming and scientific opinion to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Philip Jones, I am writing to you because you are an IPCC author and I would like to know your views on the "Global Warming Petition Project" (see [1]http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html). Were you aware of the petition before receiving this message? Yes [ ] No [ ] In part, the text of the petition states "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Do you agree with this statement? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] Do you agree that there is a consensus of scientific opinion that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] In general, should politicians implement policies on the basis of claims of a consensus of scientific opinion when there are at least some scientists who disagree and proposed policies would impose major costs? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] Had you signed the petition before receiving this message? Yes [ ] No [ ] Have you or will you sign the petition now? Yes [ ] No [ ] I would be grateful if you would send me your answers by return email. The findings from this survey will be published at [2]http://publicpolicyforecasting.com. Yours sincerely, Kesten Green Dr Kesten C Green Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Contact: T +64 4 976 3245; M +64 21 456 516; F +64 4 976 3250 PO Box 10800, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. [3]forecastingprinciples.com 3322. 2008-06-10 13:21:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:21:02 +1200 from: Kesten Green subject: Global warming and scientific opinion to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Dear Keith Briffa, I am writing to you because you are an IPCC author and I would like to know your views on the "Global Warming Petition Project" (see [1]http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html). Were you aware of the petition before receiving this message? Yes [ ] No [ ] In part, the text of the petition states "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." Do you agree with this statement? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] Do you agree that there is a consensus of scientific opinion that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] In general, should politicians implement policies on the basis of claims of a consensus of scientific opinion when there are at least some scientists who disagree and proposed policies would impose major costs? Yes [ ] No [ ] Other [ ] Had you signed the petition before receiving this message? Yes [ ] No [ ] Have you or will you sign the petition now? Yes [ ] No [ ] I would be grateful if you would send me your answers by return email. The findings from this survey will be published at [2]http://publicpolicyforecasting.com. Yours sincerely, Kesten Green Dr Kesten C Green Business and Economic Forecasting Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Contact: T +64 4 976 3245; M +64 21 456 516; F +64 4 976 3250 PO Box 10800, Wellington 6143, New Zealand. [3]forecastingprinciples.com 354. 2008-06-10 18:34:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:34:05 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Fwd: Re: ARCC to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,d.maraun@uea.ac.uk >Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:29:15 +0100 >To: Phil Jones , "Jim Hall" >From: Clare Goodess >Subject: Re: ARCC >Cc: "C G Kilsby" , "Richard Dawson" >, > >Hi Jim > >Many thanks for this. It looks a strong proposal with a good >stakeholder team already on board. So yes, as Phil has already said >we would like to be involved. > >I have one general question for Chris and Phil - which is relevant >to any work we might do on the weather generator as part of ARCC, >and is - are there any issues that we need to consider in relation >to UKCIP08, particularly if the intention is to develop a >publicly-available revision of what is available in the user >interface. Maybe we need to have some informal discussion with >UKCIP, BADC and DEFRA on this issue. > >Task 1, refers to temperature and rainfall, but presumably there is >also interest in the other wgen variables such as radiation? > >In Task 2, will it be possible to look at joint probability climate events? > >In Task 5 - would it be possible to make use of UEA Tyndall's >visualisation facilities? > >Given Phil's comments below, your second point in Task 1 >'Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis of extremes and persistence' could >be rephrased to something like 'Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis of >extremes and improved simulation of persistence'. > >I assume the UEA RA time would primarily be for Colin Harpham, and >the FEC days would be for Phil. If possible, I would like to have >some named involvement in this proposal (though would anticipate a >larger role in the critical infrastructure proposal) - so would be >good to have a little salary for me as well (e.g., a month at most). > >Are the Hadley Centre happy to be involved as a stakeholder, i.e., >with no funding?! > >Best wishes, Clare > >At 16:53 20/05/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Jim, >> I had a brief phone conversation with Chris yesterday. Some of >> the thoughts there on >> adapting the WG to better simulate hot dry spells would fit in >> here. These spells >> would clearly be more felt in urban environments as opposed to >> the countryside, as >> they are already that little bit warmer. Chris and I talked about >> getting the drier spells >> to warm up more quickly - as happens in reality sometimes. It >> isn't just the mean temperatures. >> Here's a few examples of the UHIs for London based on max and min >> temps for DJF >> and JJA. >> An interesting aspect of this work which was for the GLA is >> that a) there isn't >> much of a trend in the differences over time (so the UHI isn't >> getting worse) and b) >> for max temps the outer London site at LHR has higher temps than LWC. >> Getting the spells better in the WG is crucial, as it is the >> spells that have the impacts. >> >> So yes to being involved if the study could incorporate this aspect. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> PS The joint CRU/Tyndall garden at Chelsea won an award >> >> http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/latest_news.shtml >> >> >>At 12:41 20/05/2008, Jim Hall wrote: >> >>>Dear Clare >>> >>>In Sheffield we discussed potential joint bids to ARCC. Attached is a >>>draft outline and spreadsheet work plan for the first of two we >>>discussed. This one deals with integrated assessment of climate change >>>in cities, building strongly on the Tyndall Cities work, so is submitted >>>as a Tyndall Centre bid. The next, which I will get to you by the end of >>>this week, will deal with national-scale analysis of critical >>>infrastructure and will be based on a smaller consortium. >>> >>>Please can you/Phil: >>>1. let me know whether you are interested in being involved in this >>>proposal >>>2. let me have any comments on the outline, especially your potential >>>role in it. I recognise that the attached is twice as long as permitted >>>- I will edit and compress when we are ready to submit. >>>3. take a look at the outline resource allocation. Even though this is >>>only an outline proposal we need to generate reasonably accurate costs. >>> >>>If you would like to give me a call to discuss, please ring me this >>>week, as I will be on holiday next week. Otherwise, can you send your >>>comments to me by Friday 30 May. I will then get going with the Jes >>>outline proposal form and will require costing inputs from UEA for that. >>> >>> >>>Best wishes >>> >>>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 >>> >>>Journal of Flood Risk Management: >>>http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jfrm_enhanced/ >>> >>> >>> >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 4763. 2008-06-11 12:24:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:24:41 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: request for some additional info. to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk thanks Phil--yes, that's perfect. I just wanted to have some idea of the paper, that's more than enough info. I wouldn't bother worrying about scanning in, etc. I should have a draft letter for you to comment on within a few days or so, after I return from Trieste, talk to you later, mike [1]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mike, Thanks. The 1980/1981 papers. I don't have the pdfs. 1980: This paper looked (spatially) at temperatures and precipitation for the 5 warmest years during the 20th century and the 5 coldest. We then differenced these to produce what might happen. We expanded this in a DoE Tech Report to look at the warmest/coldest 20-year periods. This latter effort didn't make much difference. 1981: This looked at statistics of annual/winter/summer Temperatures for the NH and zones of the NH to see what signals might you be able to detect. SNR problem really. Showed that best place to detect was NH annual and also Tropics in summer. Last place to look was the Arctic because variability was so high. I did look a while ago to see if Nature had back scanned these papers, but they hadn't. Is the above enough? I have hard copies of these two papers - in Norwich Cheers Phil Hi Phil, thanks---yes, revised bibliography looks great. I'll can send you a copy of my nominating letter for comment/suggestions when done. also--can you provide one or two sentences about the '80 and '81 Nature articles w/ Wigley so that I might be able to work this briefly into the narrative of my letter? thanks, mike [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Mike. Will this do? Have added in a section on D&A. You didn't send the narrative. Will I have to alter that? Hope to get out of AVL at 5pm tonight - thunderstorms permitting. Cheers Phil HI Phil,

OK--thanks, I'll just go w/ the H=62. That is an impressive number and almost certainly higher than the vast majority of AGU Fellows.

I've attached the 2 page bibliography. I think it would be good to add some some of the more prominent D&A type papers, especially those early ones because they seem to be ahead of their time, and it is a high profile topic (more so than hydrology!). but its your call.

Enjoy Asheville--say hi to Tom for me.

talk to you later,

mike

[4]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: 
 Mike,
   Off to the US tomorrow for 1.5 days in Asheville.
 On 1, this is what people call the H index. I've tried working
 this out and there is software for it on the web of science.
 Problem is my surname. I get a number of 62 if I just use the
 software, but I have too many papers. I then waded through
 and deleted those in journals I'd never heard of and got
 52.  I think this got rid of some biologist from the 1970s/1980s,
 so go with 52.
 I don't have pdfs of the early papers. I won't be able to do
 anything for a few days either.  When do you want this in, by
 the way?  Can you email me the piece I wrote for you, as I don't
 have this on my lap top. I can then pick it up tomorrow
 at some airport.
   The D&A work has always been with others.  There is another
 area on hydrology that I omitted as well.
   Keith's daughter is OK. She had the operation last Tuesday.
 He should be over in Birmingham this weekend.
 Cheers
 Phil
  
     Hi Phil,
 I'm continuing to work on your nomination package (here in my hotel
room
in Trieste--the weather isn't any good!). If its possible for a case to
be too strong, we may have that here! Lonnie is also confirmed as
supporting letter writer, along w/ Kevin, Ben, Tom K, and Jean J. (4 of
the 5 are already AGU fellows, which I'm told is important!
Surprisingly,
Ben is not yet, nor am I.  But David Thompson is (quite young for one
of
these). I'm guessing Mike Wallace and Susan Solomon might have had
something to do w/ that ;)
 Anyway, I wanted to check w/ you on two things:
 1. One thing that people sometimes like to know is the maximum value
of
"N" where "N" is the number of papers an individual
authored/co-authored
that have more than N citations.  N=40 (i.e., an individual has
published
at least 40 papers that have each been cited at least 40 times) is
supposedly an important threshold for admission in the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences. I'm guessing your N is significantly greater than
that, and it would be nice to cite that if possible. Would you mind
figuring out that number and sending--I think it would be useful is
really sealing the case.
 2. Would you mind considering a minor revision of your 2 page
bibliography. In my nomination letter, I'm trying to underscore the
diverse areas where you've made major contributions, and I think its
well
known and obvious to many that two of these are instrumental data and
paleoclimate reconstructions. But it occurs to me that it is equally
important to stress your work in detection of anthropogenic impacts on
climate w/ both models and observations.  For example, your early
Nature
papers w/ Wigley. in '80 and '81 seem to be among the earliest efforts
to
try to do this (though I don't have copies of the papers, so can't read
them!), and that seems very much worth highlighting to me.  My
suggestion
is that you add a category on "Anthropogenic Climate Signal" detection
and include this work (say, 8 or so of the key papers in this area
including the two early Nature one's w/ Wigley) as well as some of your
later work w/ Santer/Tett/Thorne/Hegerl/Barnett. I realize that most of
your work in this area isn't as primary author, but I do think it would
be helpful to show this side of your research, and I'd like to
incorporate that into my nomination letter (i.e. how critical your
efforts have been to developments in areas such as D&amp;A).   You
could
still fit this onto 2 pages by making the font smaller for the
references
(10pt rather than 11 pt) while keeping the headings at 11 pt, and if
necessary you could probably sacrifice a few of the surface temperature
record references to make space for the additional references.
 Also, if you happen to have pdfs of the two early Wigley papers, or
even
just the text for the abstracts, it would be great to have a little
more
detail about those papers so I can appropriately work them into the
narrative of my letter.
 thanks for any help,
 mike
 p.s. please tell Keith I was very sorry he was unable to make it here
to
Trieste, I was really looking forward to seeing him (as were Ed and
many
others here).  I hope all is well w/ his daughter.
 --  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  [9]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.h
tm
    

  


--
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
[13]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: [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 722. 2008-06-12 16:38:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:38:57 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk,"Tim Osborn" Tim, Keith, Agree on your response to (1). All comments and responses have been made available by IPCC. Agree also on (2). IPCC never told us nor expected us to log all pdfs of papers sent to us. Cheers Phil At 09:07 10/06/2008, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: >Tim and Phil >this is great and I fully concur - please forward to Dave from all of us >PLEASE NOTE - I AM AT HOME FOR TODAY AND LIKELY TOMORROW. AMY IS BACK HERE >AND SARAH WILL GO TO LONDON FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS. AMY IS FINE BUT I WOULD >PREFER TO STAY HERE FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS ANYWAY >Please relay this to Tom Melvin also > > >thanks >Keith > > > Hi Keith and Phil, > > > > I guess we ought to respond to Dave Palmer's request with some detail > > about Holland's appeal, in terms of IPCC rule and the location of the > > material he wants. Rather than sending multiple emails to Dave, > > shall we reply jointly? The appeal is attached. Here are my thoughts: > > > > (1) IPCC rules. > > > > The IPCC rules quoted by Holland refer to "written expert and > > government review comments". These are specific items defined by the > > IPCC (the comments explicitly solicited by the IPCC on the various > > drafts of the reports). These specific items referred to are already > > published on the web: > > > > They do not refer to other informal correspondence that we may have > > entered into during the writing process. > > > > Therefore the IPCC rules do not require the disclosure of this > > informal correspondence and do not, therefore, override the wishes of > > these correspondents for their emails to remain confidential. > > > > (2) Amount/location of correspondence. > > > > We haven't looked for the material. Some will likely have been > > archived, some will likely have been deleted, some will likely be > > mixed in with other emails and would need to be searched for. > > > > Does that sound ok? Didn't want to spend much (more) time on this, > > so thought something short would be ok. > > > > Cheers > > > > Tim > > > >>Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal > >>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:08 +0100 > >>From: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" > >> > >>Gents, > >>The expected response from Mr. Holland. We now need to invoke our > >>complaints/appeal procedure contained within the UEA Code of > >>Practice for Responding to Requests > >>( df>https://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf). > >>We have a multi-stage process; first, I try to resolve it > >>informally, then it goes to the Director of ISD, and finally, it can > >>go to an internal 'Adjudication Board' - we have never reached this > >>latter stage on any appeal to date - we usually resolve the matter > >>or it ends up with the ICO prior to this stage. Please note, that > >>the ICO will not hear an appeal unless all avenues of internal > >>complaint process have been explored/undertaken. > >>It should also be noted that neither the Act, nor any Code of > >>Practice mandates what sort of complaints process we should have; > >>merely that one should be in existence, be fair, be known to the > >>requester, and used in situations such as this. Please also note > >>that we have to provide a time limit for response - in our Code, we > >>give ourselves 4 weeks. (28 calendar days) > >> > >>I will acknowledge the complaint/appeal and will assess whether > >>there is any room for an informal resolution of this request. I > >>doubt that there is much room here but I'm bound to look for it... > >>Should it go to the Director of ISD, I will prepare a briefing paper > >>setting out the issues for him from a FOIA perspective; and then he > >>will 'rule'. > >> > >>I have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Holland's response > >>closely as yet but will do so and get back to you... there are some > >>aspects that you may be in a better position to comment on than I > >>(e.g.. issues of confidentiality of correspondence; amount/location > >>of correspondence) and I would appreciate your input. Michael, once > >>we have had an opportunity to review, worth another meeting? > >> > >>Cheers, Dave > >> > >>cc. to Jonathan Colam for information > >> > >> > >>---------- > >>From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:14 PM > >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >>Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >> > >>Thank you. > >> > >>I have attached my reply > >> > >>David Holland > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >>To: d.holland@theiet.org > >>Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:13 PM > >>Subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >> > >> > >>Mr. Holland, > >> > >>Attached please find a response to your request received on 5 May > >>2008. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. > >> > >>Cheers, Dave Palmer > >> > >><> > >>____________________________ > >>David Palmer > >>Information Policy Officer > >>University of East Anglia > >>Norwich, England > >>NR4 7TJ > >> > > 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 > > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3561. 2008-06-13 10:43:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , Phil Jones date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:43:13 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dear Dave, you requested some input concerning David Holland's appeal, specifically on the subjects of IPCC and confidentiality versus openness, and the amount/location of correspondence: (1) IPCC rules. The IPCC rules quoted by Holland refer to "written expert and government review comments". These are specific items defined by the IPCC (the comments explicitly solicited by the IPCC on the various drafts of the reports). These specific items referred to are already published on the web: They do not refer to other informal correspondence that we may have entered into during the writing process. Therefore the IPCC rules do not require the disclosure of this informal correspondence and do not, therefore, override the wishes of these correspondents for their emails to remain confidential. Susan Solomon, who is higher up the IPCC hierarchy than we are, confirmed with her earlier email that IPCC rules did not require any further disclosure beyond what is published on the website listed above. (2) Amount/location of correspondence. We haven't looked for the material. Some will likely have been archived, some will likely have been deleted, some will likely be mixed in with other emails and would need to be searched for. Sorry not to be able to be more specific. Hope this is useful. Tim At 13:56 04/06/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >The expected response from Mr. Holland. We now need to invoke our >complaints/appeal procedure contained within the UEA Code of >Practice for Responding to Requests >(https://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.2750!uea_manual_draft_04b.pdf). >We have a multi-stage process; first, I try to resolve it >informally, then it goes to the Director of ISD, and finally, it can >go to an internal 'Adjudication Board' - we have never reached this >latter stage on any appeal to date - we usually resolve the matter >or it ends up with the ICO prior to this stage. Please note, that >the ICO will not hear an appeal unless all avenues of internal >complaint process have been explored/undertaken. >It should also be noted that neither the Act, nor any Code of >Practice mandates what sort of complaints process we should have; >merely that one should be in existence, be fair, be known to the >requester, and used in situations such as this. Please also note >that we have to provide a time limit for response - in our Code, we >give ourselves 4 weeks. (28 calendar days) > >I will acknowledge the complaint/appeal and will assess whether >there is any room for an informal resolution of this request. I >doubt that there is much room here but I'm bound to look for it... >Should it go to the Director of ISD, I will prepare a briefing paper >setting out the issues for him from a FOIA perspective; and then he >will 'rule'. > >I have not had the opportunity to review Mr. Holland's response >closely as yet but will do so and get back to you... there are some >aspects that you may be in a better position to comment on than I >(e.g.. issues of confidentiality of correspondence; amount/location >of correspondence) and I would appreciate your input. Michael, once >we have had an opportunity to review, worth another meeting? > >Cheers, Dave > >cc. to Jonathan Colam for information > > >---------- >From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] >Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:14 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > >Thank you. > >I have attached my reply > >David Holland >----- Original Message ----- >From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >To: d.holland@theiet.org >Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:13 PM >Subject: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23) > > >Mr. Holland, > >Attached please find a response to your request received on 5 May >2008. If you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. > >Cheers, Dave Palmer > ><> >____________________________ >David Palmer >Information Policy Officer >University of East Anglia >Norwich, England >NR4 7TJ > 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 4060. 2008-06-13 12:08:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:08:32 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Fwd: Some PR Challenge comments to: Keith Briffa Just what I sent Casper. FYI only. ================================== 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: June 13, 2008 10:46:43 AM EDT To: Caspar Ammann <[3]ammann@ucar.edu> Cc: Edward Cook <[4]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>, Nicholas Graham <[5]ngraham@hrc-lab.org>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo" <[6]druidrd@ldeo.columbia.edu> Subject: Some PR Challenge comments Hi Casper, As you are aware, I have some serious concerns about how the PR Challenge has been formulated. So as of now, I have no intention of participating in it. I mentioned to you in Trieste that I thought the better way to go was to use real climate data and real proxies for a range of reconstruction problems (temperature, precipitation, drought, pressure on local, regional, hemispheric scales) such that TRUE uncertainties in the reconstructions and the methods used could be objectively and realistically evaluated. The work Keith, Phil, and I did for NATO is a very useful template for doing so and the results can be objectively evaluated by setting up the testing and comparison procedures in an a priori way. However, I also recognize the value of pseudo-proxies in this context and support the original PR Challenge idea of using model output to produce pseudo-climate and pseudo-proxy data for testing as well. Indeed, one could create the pseudo-data sets to match fairly closely the properties of the actual data sets chosen for testing. Including both real and pseudo data in the experiments would dramatically strengthen your PR Challenge in my opinion because it would reduce the dependence of the results and their interpretations on the considerable uncertainty that still remains in how to generate pseudo-proxy data using forward-modeling methods. Tree rings are most developed here for forward modeling I think (e.g. the Vaganov-Shashkin model), but to assume that the V-S model can magically model the tremendous complexity of growth responses to climate in tree rings at the genus and species levels is simply wrong. Maybe the V-S model will get a lot of it right, but it will likely be in a highly idealized way that will very likely under-estimate the true uncertainty in tree-ring reconstructions. I am also not sure that useful forward models for other proxies like corals even exist yet. Perhaps the biggest complaint I have with the PR Challenge is its "double-blind" design that gives the tester no information on the problem being tested even though no such situation ever occurs in practice. At that level alone, the "double-blind" design used in the PR Challenge is very odd. Regardless, I fully understand the value of "double-blind" statistical experiments as the only way to test for true causality in, for example, cancer drug tests. But this is simply not the kind of problem we are dealing with in the proxy reconstruction game (with all due respect to your statistician colleagues). We are much more involved in something more akin to epidemiological hypothesis testing on real pre-existing data, like the association between smoking and lung cancer in humans. Do medical epidemiologists perform "double-blind" experiments to determine if smoking causes lung cancer? Basically no. They use the data available to them to answer that hypothesis with a high degree of statistical certainty without the need to conduct "double-blind" experiments on humans (not possible for smoking and lung cancer in any case). So in my opinion, the "double-blind" approach is unnecessary and, I would argue, even inappropriate here. I also don't like it because that is not the way we should be conducting our science. When I worked with Keith and Phil for a month at CRU on our NATO test data sets and reconstruction methods, we worked in a completely objective and open way that enabled us to debate various options and interpretations of our programs and reconstructions. We were also able to thoroughly test our programs using identical data for the special case of full MLR. This enabled us to be absolutely certain that we could compare results in the various best-subset cases that are typically used for reconstructing climate from tree rings. There does not appear to be any such mechanism for doing so in your PR Challenge, so differences found may be as much related to odd programming matters rather than the methods being compared. In any case, comparison of reconstruction methods should be conducted openly and that is the way that I love to work. So if the "double-blind" requirement were removed from the PR Challenge, I would be much more inclined to participate. I am not adverse to being proven wrong (or "less right" perhaps) in an open environment that allows for direct "give-and-take" on the merits of the cases being tested and argued. A "double-blind" approach is explicitly designed to eliminate the scientific openness needed to evaluate and debate reconstruction methods in my opinion. At that level, and for reasons stated above, I reject it. Regards, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [7]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== 383. 2008-06-13 15:40:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Clare Goodess'" , "'Phil Jones'" date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:40:23 +0100 from: "Colin Harpham" subject: RE: SCORCHIO to: "'C G Kilsby'" , "'vassilis glenis'" Chris We will be finalizing the grid cells next week (we also need to consider the Tyndal cities London work). The change factors are not available yet because of the slow run time of the RCM being run specifically aimed at emulating the heat island effect. Consequently my initial runs will be for the control period to conduct some sensitivity analysis and make comparisons with what little obs data we have. "We have resolved the "crap parameter" problem" - good that means the likes of Aldergrove will now run OK(?), could you send me the latest executable to run with the stand alone please. Actually I was referring to the earwig cumulative predictor variable problem I came across, email of 28/05/08 reproduced here: If you select more than one run then: First run and the following predictors are passed (Ringway cell, these look sensible): 382500 382500 72 68 2nd 765000 765000 144 136 3rd 1147500 1147500 216 204 10th 3442500 3442500 648 612 Spot the pattern? It is accumulating the original predictor values each time. By the 3^rd run the cru wgen keels over. I think I have the latest version of earwig, the setup exe is v2_1. Cheers Colin ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: C G Kilsby [mailto:c.g.kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2008 11:45 To: Colin Harpham; vassilis glenis Cc: Clare Goodess; Phil Jones Subject: RE: SCORCHIO Colin need to talk over with Vas: in principle the latest "web" version we have here should do this. Can you define exactly what change factors/cells are needed? We have resolved the "crap parameter" problem: a new fitting procedure implemented, and we can now plot maps of how good the fits are (final values of objective function). Chris ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Colin Harpham [mailto:c.harpham@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 13 June 2008 11:33 To: C G Kilsby; vassilis glenis Cc: Clare Goodess; Phil Jones Subject: SCORCHIO Hi Chris, I need to get some preliminary work done on SCORCHIO (v. soon), due to the lack of observational data the only solution is to take a gridded approach. My problem is generating the precip since I will not be able to use the stand alone rainsim version. I could do some initial daily control runs using earwig, however there is the problem I mentioned in my email of 28 May - has this been resolved? Also when I manually select more than a few individual cells the GUI crashes - just disappears from the screen. Ideally a stand alone UKCIP08 version that perhaps just takes the grid coordinates and change factors as arguments, (i.e. no graphical interface) would do the trick (I would then be able to set up a batch run). Can the core wgen be easily isolated? Cheers Colin 357. 2008-06-16 10:41:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" , Tom Wigley , Lisa Butler date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:41:16 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Symposium for Tom to: Kevin Trenberth Dear Kevin, Thanks very much for your email. It's nice that Bill is willing to commit some level of financial support for Tom's retirement Symposium. Anjuli has informed me that it will be possible to use up to $10,000 of my DOE Fellowship for the purpose of funding the Symposium. I'm assuming there may be DOE restrictions on using that money for purchasing wine and beer. I'll check into this. I guess that the $10,000 could fully fund a Symposium dinner at the St. Julien (or a restaurant of Tom's choice). There would probably be some money left over for helping folks who could not fully fund their own travel/accommodation. I spoke to Tom on Friday about "firming up" the date for the Symposium. One issue there was whether the scheduling of the Symposium should be coordinated with the 2009 CCSM meeting. Have the dates of the 2009 CCSM meeting been set? With best regards, Ben (P.S.: I'm just about to leave on a "road trip" with my son Nick. I'll be back in my office on June 23rd.) Kevin Trenberth wrote: > Ben > > I have finally received a reply from Bill Large on this topic. He > provides some support for the symposium: certainly good support for > having it but luke warm as to how many resources from CGD might be > available. > We have a visitor fund and I believe we can apply to maybe get a couple > of people to come to NCAR using those funds. But a key point is that > most travel would have to be self funded unless your DOE grant can help. > > We can apply for the funds to have a reception and I believe we will be > successful on that: the main issue is liquor (wine and beer) for which > limited or no funds are available, unless the NCAR Director or maybe > ESSL can provide some. The new NCAR Director (Eric Barron) is not yet > in place so this will need to be explored later. June 2009 is a new > financial year and hopefully things will look a bit brighter. > > I am more optimistic than might be inferred from Bill's comments (he > might not be CD Director then either), and I would encourage you/us to > go ahead with the planning but with great caution on the funding: get > invitations out and ask people to fund their own travel or make specific > requests that we might consider (but no promises). > > In Warren's symposium, there was a dinner at a hotel nearby (St Julien) > which Warren paid for himself! We can make it a no host affair whereby > everyone pays for themselves if something like that is considered > desirable: either the night before or the night of the symposium. > > Let's tie down the date and move ahead from here. > Kevin > > > > Tom included this in his retirement memo: > > Finally, my colleagues Ben Santer and Phil Jones are hoping to run a > symposium in my honor in June 2009. The ideal location for this is NCAR. > I expect that Ben will contact you soon to see whether and, if so, what > facilities NCAR can provide in support of this planned event. > > > > Ben Santer wrote: >> Dear Kevin, >> >> I spoke to Tom yesterday regarding the idea of a one-day scientific >> symposium in his honor, to be held at NCAR. I think Tom is now >> receptive to this idea. I believe that such a symposium would be a >> very appropriate way of celebrating Tom's seminal scientific >> contributions - not only to our own field, but also to aqueous >> geochemistry and karst hydrology. >> >> Tom taught me how to be a scientist. He had - and continues to have - >> an enormous influence on my own scientific career and on the careers >> of a many others. It would be fitting and appropriate to try to bring >> together Tom's colleagues at NCAR and the larger "family" of >> scientists with whom Tom has collaborated over the years (people like >> Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Sarah Raper, Tim Osborn, and Tim Atkinson at >> CRU; myself, Karl Taylor, and Peter Gleckler at PCMDI, Jae Edmonds, >> Rich Richels, Steve Smith, Mike MacCracken, Bob Charlson, etc.) >> >> Tom and I discussed possible dates for such a symposium. His >> preference would be to have it about a year from now at NCAR. >> >> I would be very happy to take the lead in planning this event. I have >> not yet approached Anjuli regarding the possibility of using some of >> my DOE funding (from my DOE Distinguished Scientist Fellowship) to >> provide some level of financial support for the planned symposium. I >> am copying Anjuli on this email, and hope I'll be able to clarify this >> issue soon. >> >> At the moment, I just wanted to check whether you (and NCAR) are >> agreeable to the idea of holding this symposium at NCAR. >> >> 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 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > **************** > Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: trenbert@ucar.edu > Climate Analysis Section, NCAR > P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318 > Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax) > > Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305 > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2602. 2008-06-17 09:32:38 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Brazdil Rudolf'" , "'Petr Dobrovolny'" , date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:32:38 +0200 from: "Reinhard Boehm" subject: AW: AW: Central European temperature reconstruction to: "'Anders Moberg'" , "'Reinhard Boehm'" Dear Anders, Rudolf and Petr, First some additional information regarding Anders' questions: Yes, everything is based on the only existing evidence of a multiyear comparison between a preserved original early instrumental site and a modern one. I would be happy if we could find additional information but it seems that Kremsmünster is unique (at least in the GAR I am quite sure about it). The second thing we did was to develop two other "correction models" for NNW and N-orientation (the Kremsmünster EI-site Kremsmünster is orientated towards +30°. Yesterday's new version of the paper-draft tells you more about that. It is quite a simple "model" but with the existing information we cannot do better I believe. Then we intensively studied metadata and could identify quite a lot of the three relevant infos we needed for the majority of the EI-sites: 1) Height above ground (less important for EI-correction of monthly means as argued in the paper draft, but interesting perhaps for future attempts on daily extremes which should be more sensitive to this parameter 2) Orientation of the site. This allowed for allocating the single sites (sunperiods) to one of the three correction models: -5 to +5° was defined to be N-orientation model, <-5° to NNW and <+5°NNE 3) The contemporarily used algorithms for means calculation You find the complete collection of metadata and the finally chosen correction models on the attached xls-file Finally (this is not yet written in the paper draft, but is implied in the ppt-file through the Regensburg-example) we applied for those cases with sufficient metadata information the individual correction models station by station (and sometimes subperiod per subperiod, applied "estimated correction models" in unsecure cases (e.g. based on the guess that similar equipment and habits for means calculation ma be assumed in stations managed by the same organisation or being in the same country. The remaining (few) cased with insufficient information were at last adjusted to the regional mean neighbouring ones with the usual proceeding when homogenising without metadata. Finally what we did not (could not) do was: Accounting for different latitudes (within our region I believe this to be of minor importance, so I would warn to overstreching the Kremsmünster-evidence too much, e.g. to the north (where insolation effects maybe stronger in summer mornings and evenings) or to the south (where the astronomical preliminaries tend to cause less problems, but maybe the climatological ones (more sunshine in summer) tend to cause more) Taking into account heat storage in the measuring walls when developing the NNW- and th N-correction models. Also for this we did not really find the necessary information on wall thicknesses, materials, colours etc... All in all I think we have done a step into the right direction. You will learn from the remaining part of the paper (I hope to be able to finish soon, but there are also other obligations) that the resulting EI-corrected records fit better to treering-reconstructions, have less difficulties to explain the high glacier extensions in the Alps in the first part of 19th century, reduce the previously existing strong difference of annual temperature cycle between the 19th and the 20th century (this is one of Phil's arguments in favour of doing the corrections), it is in better agreement with some longterm historic model runs (RIC from the GKSS-people for example) although the different solar forcing curves (mentioned in the introduction)are ambiguous (Lean, 200 is in favour of a "cold version, Bard et al., 2000) tells a story of quite strong solar forcing before the decline in the 1910s). The high elevation ice cores from the Monte Rosa Region (Colle Gnifetti)also provide two different informations, mineral dust content tending towards a cooler (EI-corrected) version, stable isotopes more towards a warmer one near 1800. The existing few infos on high-elevation alpine lake sediments tend more to tell a story of warm spring and summer temperatzures, but this is the only proxy-information which really favours the warm solution without corrections. Not to forget at last the "official" Central European CRU-version published in box 3.6, Fig.2 of WG1-2007 report which shows rather high EI-summer temperatures, just as our own HISTALP series did before the EI correction. SO if you ask me I am convinced that our new version of longterm temperature records is nearer to the truth than the other existing ones without EI-corrections. But I am not sure, whether we should extrapolate too much to other regions. Series like Berlin or perhaps Paris should be the outermost locations for it, Southern Sweden may need stronger corrections (as you have already shown Anders), oceanic locations in UK maybe weaker ones and about the south I am not sure which factor really dominates, the described astronomical or the climatological influences. So I guess for the time being we have a good solution for Central Europe, but we will have difficulties to find quantitative information for other regions as long as the "Kremsmünsters" of the North, the West, the South and the East are not yet existing. How about starting such comparative monitoring? Some of the original EI-buildings should still exist. OK, that’s all for the moment, I hope it provided the Millennium-group with some useful facts for the decisions Anders was writing about. Best regards Reinhard P.S.: I cc. this also to Phil, maybe ha also has some comments -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Anders Moberg [mailto:anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 23:34 An: Reinhard Boehm Cc: 'Brazdil Rudolf'; Petr Dobrovolny Betreff: Re: AW: Central European temperature reconstruction Dear Reinhard, cc. Rudolf and Petr Thanks indeed for sending this information and corrected data. They come very timely! I need not to say (as you already know it) that I consider it to be very important that you have developed these corrected series. I do understand that you will describe how you did the EI-corrections in the paper. But can you tell us in a few sentences what it is based on? By looking at your presentation (the pdf-file), I assume that your 8-yr parallell observations in Kremsmuenster forms the basis for your correction. Is this right? But how do you apply this knowledge to the other stations? Does your correction model account for the orientation (e.g. NE, NW, etc) of the thermometer-wall at each site? Do you account for observation hours? Latitude? It would be good to get just some hints of what you did. I also have some comments that I would like address to Rudolf and Petr: Given that this paper by Reinhard et al (as far as I understand) will be the paper about long instrumental records in the CC special issue, it is important that other related papers use the new homogenised series for the sake of consistency. In particular, the paper about Central European temperatures should be as consistent as possible with the new EI-corrected data. We agreed some week ago to use a combination of [Kremsmuenster+Basel+Prague+Rapp's German average] to construct the instrumental regional average. As Reinhard now has developed homogenised versions of both Kremsmuenster and Basel, we should use these new versions. I assume that you can also use the new EI-corrected series in your homogenisation of Prague. As concerns the Rapp series for Germany, the situtation is more tricky. We could in principle consider using an average of (some of) the German stations in Reinhard's dataset (Hohenpeissenberg, Karlsruhe, Munchen, Regensburg, Stuttgart). But then we would miss information from more northern parts of Germany. I actually think it is more important to have the EI-corrected German series from southen parts of Germany than having un-corrected Rapp data for all Germany. We might consider some compromise? E.g. homogenising the Rapp series with the EI-corrected German series as reference series. Another thing; we could also consider using more station records from Switzerland and Austria than only Basel and Kremsmuenster. I think we should have a little email conversation about this, so that all of us can say our opinions before we decide on how to construct an appropriate Central European temperature series to be used for calibration of the documentary data from CZ+DE+CH. What is your opinion -I mean all three of you? Regards, Anders Reinhard Boehm skrev: > Dear Anders, dear Rudolf > > Please understand my delay in answering your questions and your data > request. The reason war quite a complicated decision finding process mainly > with the Italian co-authors about our definite result in correcting the > EI-bias in early warm-season temperatures. > But last week we came to the decision about our definite new version of 32 > Central European temperature series starting before 1850. > And I, as the lead-author finally decided to write the paper as part of your > planned Millennium-publication, Rudolf asked me to contribute to some time > ago. > So I have finally started writing and for Your information I attach the > recent (yesterday's) status of the paper plus a presentation I gave about it > (see at pages 7 to 12 of the attached Mondsee-pdf). > I also attach 2 xls-files. The first contains all 32 EI-series in the region > in three different modes: (from left to right) EI-corrected, homogenised but > not EI-corrected and the original series (only outlier corrected) > The second xls-file explains the station code and it also tells you whom you > should acknowledge as data provider, if you explicitly use one of these > series in the publication. > > Best regards > > Reinhard > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Anders Moberg [mailto:anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2008 11:38 > An: reinhard.boehm@zamg.ac.at; Dr. Ingeborg Auer > Cc: Brazdil Rudolf; Petr Dobrovolny; Rob Wilson > Betreff: Central European temperature reconstruction > > Dear Reinhard and Ingeborg, > > cc. Rudolf, Petr, Rob, > > Hope all is well with you! As you probably already know, I am working > together with Rudolf, Petr, Rob and other colleagues in Millennium with > writing papers for the Special Issue in Climatic Change that Rudolf is > organizing. I have understood that Reinhard is contributing with a > chapter about long instrumental records. > > One of the chapters will deal with reconstruction of monthly > temperatures for Central Europe back to 1500, based on index series > derived from documentary evidence from Germany, Switzerland and the > Czech Republic. In the last few weeks, I have been engaged in the > problem of calibrating these data against long instrumental data for > Central Europe, and to put error bars on them. The basic principle for > the calibration is simple linear regression for a period of overlapping > data. The attached figure shows you some preliminary results for > seasonal averages (month 13 = DJF, 14=MAM, 15=JJA, 16=SON). The error > bars are 2*sigma error from calibration, with additional adjustment for > changes in running correlations between the individual country series. > (The error bar estimation for these data is far from trivial, but this > is not what this email is about ...) > > So far, the instrumental data I used are taken from the CRUTEM2v > dataset, with an extension back to 1781. Phil Jones and I created a long > record for Central Europe (CE) from these data, for a paper we published > in 2003. I use the same series here. However, we are discussing if we > should rather use another average temperature series for CE which we > develop specifially for this paper. This is the real reason for writing > to you: We would need the best available long instrumental records from > Germany, Switzerland and the Czech Republic to construct a suitable CE > series. Would you be interested in contributing with a selection of > series from HISTALP? Data from Austria can also be considered, even if > no documentary data from your country are used, because Austria fits > well into the climatic region of interest. > > We are of course aware of the problem of possible too warm summer > temperatures before mid-19th century. As you can see in the attached > plot, the reconstructed (smoothed) JJA temperatures lie consistently > above the zero line (1961-90 average). Obviously, if the instrumental > temperatures are biased in the calibration period (1781-1820), then the > entire reconstruction will also be biased. > > If you have any instrumental series in the pipeline that are corrected > for this bias, then it would be excellent if we could use them. Maybe > you are planning to present such series in your chapter of the Special > Issue?? If so, it would be a very nice connection between the two > papers, if we can use the same data. > > If you don't have any such corrected data, then we can at least point > out the problem and discuss it properly. In any case, we feel that it > would be good to build a new instrumental CE temperature series, to be > used here rather than the extended CRUTEM series. Many early data > records in the CRUTEM dataset have not been subject to homogeneity > testing. Rather, the dataset is just a collection of what Phil has been > able to collect. (For example, it contains Austrian series from ALOCLIM > and data from IMPROVE, but there are also other more or less untested > early data). > > We hope that you would like to collaborate by contributing with your > most appropriately selected station records. If you would like to do > this, then we would need the data very soon as we are approaching the > deadline for the paper and other chapters in the special issue are > dependent on using our reconstruction. So, please, answer as soon as you > can and tell us if, and how, you can contribute. I am convinced that > Petr (who is the lead author) is happy to include you as co-author(s) if > you like. > > Looking forward to hear from you soon, > > Best regards, > Anders > > -- 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 www.ink.su.se people.su.se/~amobe anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\EI-metadata-and-models1.xls" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\draft-2008-06-16.doc" 5223. 2008-06-17 17:29:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: Brazdil Rudolf , Reinhard Boehm , "'Petr Dobrovolny'" , P.Jones@uea.ac.uk, Juerg Luterbacher , Jucundus Jacobeit , schrier@knmi.nl date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:29:23 +0200 from: Petr Dobrovolny subject: Re: AW: AW: Central European temperature reconstruction to: Anders Moberg Dear colleagues, 1) we made some cross-checking of GER, CH and CZ document. indices on seasonal level only - I agree with Rudolf to stay on seasonal level only. 2) Average instr. CE series - my experience is - the more stations the better. Of course it is necessary to do some mutual comparison. I can do it next days with the set of stations suggested by Anders. So - I vote for including Austrian stations also. Best regards Petr Anders Moberg napsal(a): > Dear Rudolf, > > cc. all > > Some quick responses: > > 1. Yes, the monthly series are on the discrete scale from -3 to +3 for > each country. But - as we are averaging CH+DE+CZ, we actually have a > scale from -9 to +9 even for the monthly series (in years when all > countries have data, which is not always the case - but mostly we have > data from at least two countries). I think this speaks for producing > the monthly resolution. The paper can focus on seasonal resolution, > but we could anyway produce monthly series and add as 'additional > supplementary data'. > > 2-3. Yes, as we will use documentary data only for CH+DE+CZ, it is > natural to use instrumental data also for these three countries. > However, Austria nicely 'fills in' a geographical 'gap' between CH and > CZ. In addition all the EI-corrections are based on Austrian > measurements. This speaks for the use of CH+DE+CZ + AU for the > instrumental series. > > 4. Yes, it is very good if Petr can construct homogenised Prague data > separately for JFMA > > cheers, > Anders > > Brazdil Rudolf skrev: >> Dear Anders, dear colleagues, >> it is really great that also other colleagues are now involved in our >> discussions related to preparation of CE article for SI CC. There is >> no doubt that possibility to work with homogenous data significantly >> improves our possibilities and results. We spent with Peter a lot of >> time trying to homogenise Prague and Rapp series and it was done on >> seasonal and annual levels. Of course, in the situation we have also >> some German data available it is better to calculate any new German >> series and we can try to look once again on Prague data. But we >> should not forget the original aim of our paper fo SI CC - i.e. >> reconstruction of CE temperatures based on documentary and >> instrumental data since 1500. In this connection we need instrumental >> data for calibration/verification of documentary data and factual >> extension of instrumental data to AD 1500. In connection with this I >> propose following: >> 1) for supposed article in SI CC present results only on seasonal and >> annual level - working with documentary data on monthly level is >> biased by higher uncertainties than in case of seasons (e.g. >> resolution - for monthly indices you have only scale -3 to +3, but >> for seasons -9 to +9, we did not cross-checked interpretations of >> indices on the monthly level etc.) >> 2) if we have documentary data only for D, CH and CZ, then >> corresponding "CE" series should be really calculated only from >> series of these 3 regions >> 3) in case we would like to have real CE temperature series, then we >> should include not only Austrian data, but also Polish, Slovakian a >> Hungarian, how is usually Central Europe geographically taken >> 4) as mentioned by Peter, we are able to homogenise monthly Prague >> temperatures for JFMA for Juerg. >> With best regards, >> Sincerely >> Rudolf >> >> Anders Moberg napsal(a): >> >>> Dear Reinhard, Rudolf, Petr, Phil, Juerg, Jucundus, Gerard >>> >>> First of all; thanks, Reinhard, for this additional info. You >>> certainly don't need to convince me - I am already convinced that >>> your EI-corrected versions are better than the non-corrected >>> versions. This is certainly a step in the right direction. >>> >>> And good to have Phil onboard this little email conversation! It was >>> quite a time ago since we did some real work together. Phil; to make >>> a long story short - all you need to know at the moment, is that we >>> (Petr, Rudolf and others) aim at developing temperature series (at >>> least seasonal, but monthly are possible) for Central Europe back to >>> 1500 based on documentary evidence from Switzerland (Pfister), >>> Germany (Glaser) and Czech Republic (Petr, Rudolf), calibrated by >>> means of linear regression against long instrumental records over a >>> period overlap, and then using standard verification statistics plus >>> some additional work to modify the error bars to take into account >>> changes in expressed population signal over time. The calibrated >>> documentary series will then be used to extend the instrumental >>> record back in time. This is where Reinhard's new EI-corrected data >>> come in! >>> >>> I also put Juerg, Jucundus and Gerard on this email, as a >>> continuation of the discussions we had yesterday here in Ascona. >>> >>> Since yesterday, I had a look in the Rapp report from 2000. I just >>> realized (and Petr just 'discovered' the same thing independently, >>> as he just wrote that in an email to me) that Rapp's "German" series >>> for the period 1761-1890 actually is an average of De Bilt, Berlin, >>> Wien, Basel!! Obviously, we cannot and should not use the Rapp >>> series for our current work. I suggest instead the following >>> appropach, which is slightly different compared to what Petr, Rudolf >>> and I have been talking about recently: >>> >>> We construct one temperature series per country (Switzerland, >>> Germany, Czech, Austria), and then simply average the four country >>> series together to form a Central European temperature series. Voilá! >>> >>> The CH component could be an average of Basel, Bern and Geneva. >>> The DE component could be an average of Hohenpeissenberg, Karlsruhe, >>> Munchen, Regensburg and Stuttgart. >>> The AU component could be an average of Innsbruck, Kremsmuenster and >>> Wien. >>> The CZ component could consist simply of Prague, but homogenized >>> against appropriately chosen nearby stations in the new EI-corrected >>> dataset. >>> >>> Some questions: >>> >>> 1. Can any of you figure out a significantly better way to construct >>> a CE-average for the purpose of calibration and combination with >>> documentary data from CH+DE+CZ? Perhaps some of you would advocate >>> an unweighted average of all (or selected) individual stations, >>> rather than constructing four country series and then average? >>> >>> 2. Reinhard, you know most about all the individual EI-corrected >>> station records; Are they all of equal quality? Or should some >>> station(s) be excluded for data quality reasons? >>> >>> 3. Petr, would it be possible for you to homogenize the Prague >>> series along the lines suggested above? >>> >>> 4. We (Petr, Rudolf and I) have had some internal discussions as to >>> whether we should aim at reconstructing seasonal or monthly >>> temperatures. Petr advocates seasonal series. I rather think that, >>> because it is actually possible to construct monthly series back to >>> 1500, we should produce monthly series for the whole period. We can >>> of course also produce separately calibrated series for the >>> traditional seasons (DJF, MAM, JJA, SON) plus the additional JFMA >>> winter/spring season (for comparison with Stockholm) and also annual >>> mean series, in order to get the error bars for the seasons being >>> constructed directly for the seasonal averages. I cannot find any >>> particular reason why we should not produce monthly series. Even if >>> they might have poorer quality than the seasonal ones, this will be >>> accounted for by the error bars. For me, it is not much more work to >>> do 12 monthly series + 5 seasons + 1 annual series compared to doing >>> only the seasonal and annual cases. We can of course not discuss all >>> monthly series in detail in the paper, but we can show them all and >>> 'deliver' the data. >>> >>> Looking forwards to hear your viewpoints, >>> >>> cheers, >>> Anders >>> >>> >>> >>> Reinhard Boehm skrev: >>> >>>> Dear Anders, Rudolf and Petr, >>>> >>>> First some additional information regarding Anders' questions: >>>> >>>> Yes, everything is based on the only existing evidence of a multiyear >>>> comparison between a preserved original early instrumental site and >>>> a modern >>>> one. I would be happy if we could find additional information but >>>> it seems >>>> that Kremsmünster is unique (at least in the GAR I am quite sure >>>> about it). >>>> >>>> The second thing we did was to develop two other "correction >>>> models" for NNW >>>> and N-orientation (the Kremsmünster EI-site Kremsmünster is orientated >>>> towards +30°. Yesterday's new version of the paper-draft tells you >>>> more >>>> about that. It is quite a simple "model" but with the existing >>>> information >>>> we cannot do better I believe. >>>> >>>> Then we intensively studied metadata and could identify quite a lot >>>> of the >>>> three relevant infos we needed for the majority of the EI-sites: >>>> 1) Height above ground (less important for EI-correction of monthly >>>> means as >>>> argued in the paper draft, but interesting perhaps for future >>>> attempts on >>>> daily extremes which should be more sensitive to this parameter >>>> 2) Orientation of the site. This allowed for allocating the single >>>> sites >>>> (sunperiods) to one of the three correction models: -5 to +5° was >>>> defined to >>>> be N-orientation model, <-5° to NNW and <+5°NNE >>>> 3) The contemporarily used algorithms for means calculation >>>> >>>> You find the complete collection of metadata and the finally chosen >>>> correction models on the attached xls-file >>>> >>>> Finally (this is not yet written in the paper draft, but is implied >>>> in the >>>> ppt-file through the Regensburg-example) we applied for those cases >>>> with >>>> sufficient metadata information the individual correction models >>>> station by >>>> station (and sometimes subperiod per subperiod, applied "estimated >>>> correction models" in unsecure cases (e.g. based on the guess that >>>> similar >>>> equipment and habits for means calculation ma be assumed in >>>> stations managed >>>> by the same organisation or being in the same country. The >>>> remaining (few) >>>> cased with insufficient information were at last adjusted to the >>>> regional >>>> mean neighbouring ones with the usual proceeding when homogenising >>>> without >>>> metadata. >>>> >>>> Finally what we did not (could not) do was: >>>> >>>> Accounting for different latitudes (within our region I believe >>>> this to be >>>> of minor importance, so I would warn to overstreching the >>>> Kremsmünster-evidence too much, e.g. to the north (where insolation >>>> effects >>>> maybe stronger in summer mornings and evenings) or to the south >>>> (where the >>>> astronomical preliminaries tend to cause less problems, but maybe the >>>> climatological ones (more sunshine in summer) tend to cause more) >>>> >>>> Taking into account heat storage in the measuring walls when >>>> developing the >>>> NNW- and th N-correction models. Also for this we did not really >>>> find the >>>> necessary information on wall thicknesses, materials, colours >>>> etc... All in all I think we have done a step into the right >>>> direction. You will >>>> learn from the remaining part of the paper (I hope to be able to >>>> finish >>>> soon, but there are also other obligations) that the resulting >>>> EI-corrected >>>> records fit better to treering-reconstructions, have less >>>> difficulties to >>>> explain the high glacier extensions in the Alps in the first part >>>> of 19th >>>> century, reduce the previously existing strong difference of annual >>>> temperature cycle between the 19th and the 20th century (this is >>>> one of >>>> Phil's arguments in favour of doing the corrections), it is in better >>>> agreement with some longterm historic model runs (RIC from the >>>> GKSS-people >>>> for example) although the different solar forcing curves (mentioned >>>> in the >>>> introduction)are ambiguous (Lean, 200 is in favour of a "cold >>>> version, Bard >>>> et al., 2000) tells a story of quite strong solar forcing before >>>> the decline >>>> in the 1910s). The high elevation ice cores from the Monte Rosa Region >>>> (Colle Gnifetti)also provide two different informations, mineral dust >>>> content tending towards a cooler (EI-corrected) version, stable >>>> isotopes >>>> more towards a warmer one near 1800. The existing few infos on >>>> high-elevation alpine lake sediments tend more to tell a story of warm >>>> spring and summer temperatzures, but this is the only >>>> proxy-information >>>> which really favours the warm solution without corrections. Not to >>>> forget at >>>> last the "official" Central European CRU-version published in box >>>> 3.6, Fig.2 >>>> of WG1-2007 report which shows rather high EI-summer temperatures, >>>> just as >>>> our own HISTALP series did before the EI correction. >>>> >>>> SO if you ask me I am convinced that our new version of longterm >>>> temperature >>>> records is nearer to the truth than the other existing ones without >>>> EI-corrections. But I am not sure, whether we should extrapolate >>>> too much to >>>> other regions. Series like Berlin or perhaps Paris should be the >>>> outermost >>>> locations for it, Southern Sweden may need stronger corrections (as >>>> you have >>>> already shown Anders), oceanic locations in UK maybe weaker ones >>>> and about >>>> the south I am not sure which factor really dominates, the described >>>> astronomical or the climatological influences. So I guess for the >>>> time being >>>> we have a good solution for Central Europe, but we will have >>>> difficulties to >>>> find quantitative information for other regions as long as the >>>> "Kremsmünsters" of the North, the West, the South and the East are >>>> not yet >>>> existing. How about starting such comparative monitoring? Some of the >>>> original EI-buildings should still exist. >>>> >>>> OK, that’s all for the moment, I hope it provided the >>>> Millennium-group with >>>> some useful facts for the decisions Anders was writing about. >>>> >>>> Best regards >>>> >>>> Reinhard >>>> >>>> P.S.: I cc. this also to Phil, maybe ha also has some comments >>>> >>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>> Von: Anders Moberg [mailto:anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se] Gesendet: >>>> Montag, 16. Juni 2008 23:34 >>>> An: Reinhard Boehm >>>> Cc: 'Brazdil Rudolf'; Petr Dobrovolny >>>> Betreff: Re: AW: Central European temperature reconstruction >>>> >>>> Dear Reinhard, >>>> >>>> cc. Rudolf and Petr >>>> >>>> Thanks indeed for sending this information and corrected data. They >>>> come very timely! I need not to say (as you already know it) that I >>>> consider it to be very important that you have developed these >>>> corrected series. >>>> >>>> I do understand that you will describe how you did the >>>> EI-corrections in the paper. But can you tell us in a few sentences >>>> what it is based on? By looking at your presentation (the >>>> pdf-file), I assume that your 8-yr parallell observations in >>>> Kremsmuenster forms the basis for your correction. Is this right? >>>> But how do you apply this knowledge to the other stations? Does >>>> your correction model account for the orientation (e.g. NE, NW, >>>> etc) of the thermometer-wall at each site? Do you account for >>>> observation hours? Latitude? It would be good to get just some >>>> hints of what you did. >>>> >>>> I also have some comments that I would like address to Rudolf and >>>> Petr: Given that this paper by Reinhard et al (as far as I >>>> understand) will be the paper about long instrumental records in >>>> the CC special issue, it is important that other related papers use >>>> the new homogenised series for the sake of consistency. In >>>> particular, the paper about Central European temperatures should be >>>> as consistent as possible with the new EI-corrected data. We agreed >>>> some week ago to use a combination of >>>> [Kremsmuenster+Basel+Prague+Rapp's German average] to construct the >>>> instrumental regional average. As Reinhard now has developed >>>> homogenised versions of both Kremsmuenster and Basel, we should use >>>> these new versions. I assume that you can also use the new >>>> EI-corrected series in your homogenisation of Prague. As concerns >>>> the Rapp series for Germany, the situtation is more tricky. We >>>> could in principle consider using an average of (some of) the >>>> German stations in Reinhard's dataset (Hohenpeissenberg, Karlsruhe, >>>> Munchen, Regensburg, Stuttgart). But then we would miss information >>>> from more northern parts of Germany. I actually think it is more >>>> important to have the EI-corrected German series from southen parts >>>> of Germany than having un-corrected Rapp data for all Germany. We >>>> might consider some compromise? E.g. homogenising the Rapp series >>>> with the EI-corrected German series as reference series. Another >>>> thing; we could also consider using more station records from >>>> Switzerland and Austria than only Basel and Kremsmuenster. I think >>>> we should have a little email conversation about this, so that all >>>> of us can say our opinions before we decide on how to construct an >>>> appropriate Central European temperature series to be used for >>>> calibration of the documentary data from CZ+DE+CH. What is your >>>> opinion -I mean all three of you? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Anders >>>> >>>> >>>> Reinhard Boehm skrev: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Anders, dear Rudolf >>>>> >>>>> Please understand my delay in answering your questions and your data >>>>> request. The reason war quite a complicated decision finding process >>>>> >>>> >>>> mainly >>>> >>>> >>>>> with the Italian co-authors about our definite result in >>>>> correcting the >>>>> EI-bias in early warm-season temperatures. >>>>> But last week we came to the decision about our definite new >>>>> version of 32 >>>>> Central European temperature series starting before 1850. And I, >>>>> as the lead-author finally decided to write the paper as part of >>>>> >>>> >>>> your >>>> >>>> >>>>> planned Millennium-publication, Rudolf asked me to contribute to >>>>> some time >>>>> ago. >>>>> So I have finally started writing and for Your information I >>>>> attach the >>>>> recent (yesterday's) status of the paper plus a presentation I >>>>> gave about >>>>> >>>> >>>> it >>>> >>>> >>>>> (see at pages 7 to 12 of the attached Mondsee-pdf). >>>>> I also attach 2 xls-files. The first contains all 32 EI-series in the >>>>> >>>> >>>> region >>>> >>>> >>>>> in three different modes: (from left to right) EI-corrected, >>>>> homogenised >>>>> >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> >>>>> not EI-corrected and the original series (only outlier corrected) >>>>> The second xls-file explains the station code and it also tells >>>>> you whom >>>>> >>>> >>>> you >>>> >>>> >>>>> should acknowledge as data provider, if you explicitly use one of >>>>> these >>>>> series in the publication. >>>>> Best regards >>>>> >>>>> Reinhard >>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >>>>> Von: Anders Moberg [mailto:anders.moberg@natgeo.su.se] Gesendet: >>>>> Mittwoch, 28. Mai 2008 11:38 >>>>> An: reinhard.boehm@zamg.ac.at; Dr. Ingeborg Auer >>>>> Cc: Brazdil Rudolf; Petr Dobrovolny; Rob Wilson >>>>> Betreff: Central European temperature reconstruction >>>>> >>>>> Dear Reinhard and Ingeborg, >>>>> >>>>> cc. Rudolf, Petr, Rob, >>>>> >>>>> Hope all is well with you! As you probably already know, I am >>>>> working together with Rudolf, Petr, Rob and other colleagues in >>>>> Millennium with writing papers for the Special Issue in Climatic >>>>> Change that Rudolf is organizing. I have understood that Reinhard >>>>> is contributing with a chapter about long instrumental records. >>>>> >>>>> One of the chapters will deal with reconstruction of monthly >>>>> temperatures for Central Europe back to 1500, based on index >>>>> series derived from documentary evidence from Germany, Switzerland >>>>> and the Czech Republic. In the last few weeks, I have been engaged >>>>> in the problem of calibrating these data against long instrumental >>>>> data for Central Europe, and to put error bars on them. The basic >>>>> principle for the calibration is simple linear regression for a >>>>> period of overlapping data. The attached figure shows you some >>>>> preliminary results for seasonal averages (month 13 = DJF, 14=MAM, >>>>> 15=JJA, 16=SON). The error bars are 2*sigma error from >>>>> calibration, with additional adjustment for changes in running >>>>> correlations between the individual country series. (The error bar >>>>> estimation for these data is far from trivial, but this is not >>>>> what this email is about ...) >>>>> >>>>> So far, the instrumental data I used are taken from the CRUTEM2v >>>>> dataset, with an extension back to 1781. Phil Jones and I created >>>>> a long record for Central Europe (CE) from these data, for a paper >>>>> we published in 2003. I use the same series here. However, we are >>>>> discussing if we should rather use another average temperature >>>>> series for CE which we develop specifially for this paper. This is >>>>> the real reason for writing to you: We would need the best >>>>> available long instrumental records from Germany, Switzerland and >>>>> the Czech Republic to construct a suitable CE series. Would you be >>>>> interested in contributing with a selection of series from >>>>> HISTALP? Data from Austria can also be considered, even if no >>>>> documentary data from your country are used, because Austria fits >>>>> well into the climatic region of interest. >>>>> >>>>> We are of course aware of the problem of possible too warm summer >>>>> temperatures before mid-19th century. As you can see in the >>>>> attached plot, the reconstructed (smoothed) JJA temperatures lie >>>>> consistently above the zero line (1961-90 average). Obviously, if >>>>> the instrumental temperatures are biased in the calibration period >>>>> (1781-1820), then the entire reconstruction will also be biased. >>>>> >>>>> If you have any instrumental series in the pipeline that are >>>>> corrected for this bias, then it would be excellent if we could >>>>> use them. Maybe you are planning to present such series in your >>>>> chapter of the Special Issue?? If so, it would be a very nice >>>>> connection between the two papers, if we can use the same data. >>>>> >>>>> If you don't have any such corrected data, then we can at least >>>>> point out the problem and discuss it properly. In any case, we >>>>> feel that it would be good to build a new instrumental CE >>>>> temperature series, to be used here rather than the extended >>>>> CRUTEM series. Many early data records in the CRUTEM dataset have >>>>> not been subject to homogeneity testing. Rather, the dataset is >>>>> just a collection of what Phil has been able to collect. (For >>>>> example, it contains Austrian series from ALOCLIM and data from >>>>> IMPROVE, but there are also other more or less untested early data). >>>>> >>>>> We hope that you would like to collaborate by contributing with >>>>> your most appropriately selected station records. If you would >>>>> like to do this, then we would need the data very soon as we are >>>>> approaching the deadline for the paper and other chapters in the >>>>> special issue are dependent on using our reconstruction. So, >>>>> please, answer as soon as you can and tell us if, and how, you can >>>>> contribute. I am convinced that Petr (who is the lead author) is >>>>> happy to include you as co-author(s) if you like. >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to hear from you soon, >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Anders >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > 2219. 2008-06-18 08:51:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: , "'Maurizio Maugeri'" , , "'michele'" date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:51:40 +0200 from: "Reinhard Boehm" subject: AW: AW: EI-paper to: "'David Frank'" Hi David, Thanks fort he compliment, but there is still something to do, before the draft is finished. Nevertheless thank you also for your comments. As to the author's question you were mentioning earlier, I am aware that we should include somebody else, and I am also not afraid of having many authors (I think you know our list of the Auer et al, 2007 HISTALP-paper), but let us postpone the question till I see clearer how intensively the proxies will be described in section 2. I have mentioned them shortly already now in the introduction and I am playing with the idea to only add one or two comparative figures with all those mentioned proxy series and cancel the planned section two. In this case I would not include too many additional co-authors, just mentioning the sources for the figure. In case we really write a longer section two, then I expect to receive something like one page of text from each new co. But let me decide on that after having finished all the sections except section two, look how long it then is and then decide on doing a longer section two (with several additional cos then) or not. Regarding you and Johann, the story is different. You were the two which really started the thing going with your two papers - therefore it is no question og having you two in the team. And I also have a little "Hintergedanken" that you might be so kind to perform a perfect language trimming at the end to make my Austro-English a bit better than I can do. Is this allright? Best regards Reinhard P.S.: I hope you all agree that I would prefer to send the paper to Climatic Change. This makes my situation easier, because I have promised Rudolf Brazdil several months ago to write something about the early instrumental period for a special issue devoted to the Millennium project. So using our paper for this makes sense I think and helps me with my time problems, and it has finally kicked me to postpone other things and really start writing our paper now. By the way, Phil, Rudolf is rather optimistic that an online version of the paper will not have the usual "Climatic Change" delays. This relies also on keeping our own deadline (early July), but I see no problem on that. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: David Frank [mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 07:04 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: AW: EI-paper Hi Reinhard, That is a big jump between having an outline and a draft in a short amount of time! (I wish i could do this too...) Included in the text are a some minor comments/suggestions. Most of these go in the direction of trying to help a reader who is not aware of the EI problem, realize more quickly how/why this might be a problem. I still like the idea to include the modelling aspect as part of a composite figure with proxy evidence. Best wishes, David Dear Maurizio, dear all Find attached yesterday's new version of the paper. It contains a rather detailed "Introduction" which already shortly discusses the proxy evidence. This may serve, as You Maurizio and also Phil claimed for, to keep the proxy section short enough and thus leave more place for the core of the paper. What would be nice for the (still missing) proxy section would be (one?) comparative Figure showing several (all?) proxi records together. But the problem is that not all of them are really reconstructed temperatures - so what to do with things like "dust content", delta 18O, S? Finally I want to draw your attention on the short section in the introduction on natural forcings and on respective modelling results. I am still in favour of at least mentioning this, although the majority of you seems not really to like it. Maybe you change your mind having had a look at the examples shown in the second attached file (I hope the German captions are not too enigmatic for some of you, I took the examples from my new book which is in German). Best regards Reinhard ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Maurizio Maugeri [mailto:maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 18:42 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: EI-paper Dear Reinhard, I agree with you. The paper will probably benefit of an additional section on "the evidence for the ei problem". Anyway I suggest a not-too-long section and I'm not so in favour of including a part on the models. I think that we should concentrate on the main focus of the paper (the correction of the EI series) and so I suggest to considere the section on "the evidence for the ei problem" as a section that clearly explains why we have to concern with a bias in the EI records. But can model data help us to do that? Ciao Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Reinhard Boehm To: [2]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [3]'michele' ; [4]'Phil Jones' ; [5]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at ; [6]'David Frank' Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:22 PM Subject: EI-paper Friends, Find attached my proposal for the structure of our common paper. Please comment on it, I am going to start writing then soon. Please comment particularly on the section about "evidence for the ei-problemS". For this I have already received several contributions (of about 1 page each) from the proxy-people. The intention of this section is to illustrate existing systematic biases instrumental vs. proxy or not. I think this is a necessary section, but it increases of course the length of the paper. I am in favour of doing it, but I would like to hear your comments. Of course then we have to increase also the number of co-authors by the following persons: Karin Koinig (lake sediments, Univ. Innsbruck), Dietmar Wagenbach (Icecores, Univ. Heidelberg) and Jürg Lutherbacher (Grapeharvest Swiss plateau, Univ. Bern). I also would like to ask Eduardo Zorita (GKSS) to send the GAR-section of their ERIK-model runs, which would add another independent information. For your information I have attached two of his historic model runs he sent me some months ago for my "Heiße Luft"-Book. What you see on the attached file is JJAS-average over continental Europe. If GAR is not too different from it, this would again be a hint towards our new corrected datasets. Looking forward to your comments Best regards Reinhard Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-06-16.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E6) Attachment converted: MacDave:FORCING-MODELLING-EXAMPLES.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E7) 493. 2008-06-18 09:39:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 18 09:39:51 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Review of your Holocene submission to: "Nathan Malcomb" Nathan this is a difficult one - because I suspect you may be able to improve the standardisation to some extent but not by generally available approaches - my best suggestion would be that you might simply note the potential lack of lower frequency info and still present the results in a sense - as high-pass interpreted data. It turns out the main referee is citing information (it is not me or anyone here by the way) that is not that generally appreciated by many yet as the "recent bias" effect is in a paper (by Tom and me here) that this referee had access to . The chronologies really need standardising with a "signal-free" approach. HOWEVER, THERE IS CLEARLY NO SIMPLE FIX HERE. It is not impossible that if you submitted this elsewhere you might not meet the same objections - but would that be satisfactory in your own mind anyway? Perhaps you could try a revision and then reconsider? sorry that I can not be more positive. best wishes Keith At 16:27 17/06/2008, Nathan Malcomb wrote: Dear Dr. Briffa, Thank you for sendng the first review of the paper. The reviewer noted several undeniable flaws with our mass balance reconstructions, the most serious of which being the short calibration periods used in modeling. This problem stems from the heavy use of Fritz Schweingruber's 1983 chronologies. While many of the review's other suggestions can be addressed, it would not be possible for us to update these chronologies or omit them entirely. Given these limitations, is this paper salvageable for re-submittall to the Holocene? Can you recommend another journal or letter ? Thank you. Nathan Malcomb On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Keith Briffa <[1]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> wrote: Dear Dr Malcomb ( and Greg) I am really sorry for the delay in the review of this paper. The truth is that it is not my fault though. I received one review some weeks ago , but I have been trying for some time to get the other one. I have sent reminders but having received your latest request for news , via John Matthews , I sent another urgent request which has succeeded only in the reviewer informing me that he can not get the review done and asking me to find another reviewer. I am copying the initial review that I have below - but you will see that it is not favorable . You may care to consider the points and perhaps respond as to your likely course of action . In its present form and on the basis of this review , we would be unable to accept the paper for publication. I can if you wish send it out to another reviewer (perhaps you may even like to suggest one?). However we would be bound to respect the original reviewer's opinion and would require significant reworking of the paper even so. What course of action would you consider appropriate at this time ? We have now moved to an electronic submission system and you may wish to consider resubmitting a revised manuscript through that route. I apologise again that you have had to wait for this response, but I have to stress that it is getting increasingly difficult to find reviewers who are prepared to dedicate the time needed to undertake careful reviews. I look forward to hearing response best wishes Keith Paper by Malcomb / Wiles Tree-ring based mass balance estimates along the Northwestern Cordillera of North America Conclusion: The paper presents a tree-ring based reconstruction of the glacier mass balance evolution in Northwestern North America for the last few centuries. However, the dendrochronological methods used are inadequate for centennial reconstructions. Moreover, the calibration periods are shortened due to optimize the calibration results. This ends up in very short calibration periods. There are no statistical tests for the stability of the glacier tree ring relationships on which the calibration is based for the reconstruction period. Even some important references are not used. The paper should not be published with these major problems. Some details: Line 30: glacier-climate relation: statement that glacier size changes only can display at least multi-decadal fluctuations is too general directly observed length change records of some glaciers even document inter-annual reactions Line 47 and following: even European references on tree-ring based glacier mass-balance reconstructions should be used e.g. Raper et al., who discuss the important point of changing meteorological conditions and their influence on the reconstruction results Line 15: the calibration periods are extremely short shortened to optimize the calibration results. This in combination with multiple predictors selected out of a set of data due to good statistical results leads to high correlations for the calibration periods. However, the authors mentions that this calibration is not stable for recent years. Additionally there is no test of these reconstructions for the past. The authors could at least test the stability of the relationships between the tree-ring chronologies used for the reconstructions for the reconstruction period (e.g. running window correlations). Line 109: It is well known that individual standardisation of tree-ring series does not allow reconstructions for frequency bands greater than the mean segment length of the single series. Additionally this standardization produces even end effects that might be at least partly responsible for the a divergence problem in recent years. Because the study aims on a multi-century long mass balance reconstruction other standardisation methods should be used. The missing long term trend (e.g. in comparison the Northern Hemisphere temperatures as displayed in Fig. 3) of the mass balances reconstructions are probably a direct standardisation artefact Line 116 and following: the paper limits the time period for the calibration of the tree-ring mass-balance relationship by a simple statement on "model instability" in the recent years. It is too simple to say, that tree rings lost their climate sensitivity (high frequency or low frequency band ?) in recent years and therefore to exclude the last approx. 20 years of observation. General: - instead of "instrumental mass balances" the term "glaciological mass balances" should be used, because glacier mass balances are not measured by using an instrument - additionally and to avoid confusions, tree-ring based mass balances data are "reconstructed mass balances" - the paper compares the mass balance reconstructions with the individual and regional glacier history (e.g. fig. 3) therefore the known history of the glaciers used should be shortly mentioned: know LIA glacier maximum, history since this max, distance of retreat - The reconstructed mass balances are not really compared with local and regional glacier history. Some reconstructions show an overall positive mass balance trend for the last c. 200 years is this in accordance with "real" glacier evolution? Figures and tables: - Figure 2 and 3: instead of characters the names of the glaciers itself should be displayed in the figures, figure 3: what kind of data is displayed should be indicated - Table 1: more information on the tree-ring sites and chronologies used is necessary: number of trees in the chronology, mean segment length, inter-correlation of the series, altitude of site, distance of the site to local tree line -- 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/ -- 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/ 3020. 2008-06-18 10:35:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:35:37 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: quick question-phil to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" Hi Keith, between us: I am thinking of nominating Phil as an AGU fellow since I think in his quiet way he has done huge amounts for climate change research. Do you know if somebody has tried this yet? Do you think its a good idea? do you have an up to date vita if you think it is a good idea? Francis is all for this as well, and Nathan thought it was a good idea (as does Simon think etc). If you think its a good idea good to know soon since time is running out on us 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 4838. 2008-06-18 12:40:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 18 12:40:00 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: quick question-phil to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi some good names , but the timescale is surely unrealistic this time round. I can get his cv but I think peoiple will possibly be irritated if rushed? I will try and get his cv to you asap anyway cheers Keith At 12:31 18/06/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, timescale is July 1 (I know... need to find out how bad if some letters come late) Francis and I thought we could get letters from Simon Tett, Ben Santer, MIke Wallace, Brian Hoskins (both fellows) Ray Bradley (dont remember if fellow). what do you think? But neither Francis nor I are fellows. I checked with Susan and she is frustrated with her last few tries so is not pushing anybody in the moment. Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: I would have thought that the nomination should best come from someone elswhere and probably best from an American and presumably an existing Fellow. I confess that I do not know who these are but presumably easy to find out. Also , what is the time scale for this? At 10:58 18/06/2008, you wrote: well quiet in comparison to the big battleships that get all the big prizes partly for accomplishment and partly for believing science would collapse without them? thanks so much, Francis only found a 2003 CV on his webpage. I am not sure if people from same place write letters - what do you think? Gabi Keith Briffa wrote: Absolutely great idea - I think he deserves it and would appreciate it. He is not so quiet often also. I am not aware that anyone has tried this before . I can probably get a recent cv if needed Keith At 10:35 18/06/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, between us: I am thinking of nominating Phil as an AGU fellow since I think in his quiet way he has done huge amounts for climate change research. Do you know if somebody has tried this yet? Do you think its a good idea? do you have an up to date vita if you think it is a good idea? Francis is all for this as well, and Nathan thought it was a good idea (as does Simon think etc). If you think its a good idea good to know soon since time is running out on us 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 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 [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- 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 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 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- 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 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 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1832. 2008-06-18 14:36:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jun 18 14:36:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: FOI correspndence to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Tim Osborn" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave, Michael, We have just spoken to John Mitchell. Apart from contacting Marion Archer you should also try and speak to Nick Benson, who is a lawyer at the Met Office. So can you persevere with trying to contact her. John is in Geneva at the moment but will be back contactable in the UK on Friday. John doesn't seem to be getting much advice at the Met Office. We have told him that you will send hard copies of the proposed response and copies of the earlier letters and responses. John's address is Dr John Mitchell Met Office > FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886427 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Below is the issue about the web site Cheers Phil See below re the point I made at the end of our meeting this morning. I suspect it relates to this sub-page [1]http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/ipcccont.html X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5317"; a="19333533" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,642,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="19333533" Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:59:06 -0700 From: Ben Santer Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov Organization: LLNL User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529) To: amlibpub@gmail.com Subject: Your website X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 2.20 (**) [Hold at 5.00] DEAR_SOMETHING X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 4863214 - 5365aa23d9e0 X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4863214&m=5365aa23d9e0&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4863214&m=5365aa23d9e0&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [4]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=4863214&m=5365aa23d9e0&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id m5DMx7RU011714 X-UEA-Spam-Score: 0.8 X-UEA-Spam-Level: / X-UEA-Spam-Flag: NO To the Editor American Liberty Publishers Minneapolis, MN 55418 Dear Sir, Your website ([5]http://www.amlibpub.com/top/contact_us.html) was recently brought to my attention. On this site, you make the following claims: "In the Second Assessment Report, Benjamin Santer, lead author of a crucial study, falsified a chart to make it appear to support global warminga conclusion not supported at all by the original data. But two climatologists, Knappenberger and Michaels, looked up the data and exposed the fraud. Santer said he adjusted the data to make it agree with political policy." These claims have no factual basis whatsoever, and are demonstrably libelous. I did not falsify data. I did not commit fraud. I did not - nor have I ever - "adjusted" scientific data "to make it agree with political policy." Nor did I ever state that I had made data adjustments in order to conform to political policy. I request that you retract these claims immediately. They are completely fictitious, and are harmful to my scientific reputation. If you do not retract these claims immediately, I will transfer this matter to the attention of legal staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Sincerely, Dr. Benjamin Santer U.S. Dept. of Energy Distinguished Scientist (2006) Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award (2002) John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow (1998) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1342. 2008-06-19 09:39:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:39:01 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: nomination letter to: Phil Jones thanks Phil--fixed! waiting on two more letters, then I'll send in the package to AGU. Should be a no-brainer! talk to you later, mike Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > There is one type in your nomination letter. I missed it firts > time I read it. > > In the second paragraph, second line remove the first 'surface'. You > have > two one before and one after (CRU). Just the one after needed. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 16:59 18/06/2008, you wrote: >> hey Phil, at Dulles waiting for flight to Orlando Florida. >> >> IUGG is the first time I ever met you. but I believe I had already >> corresponeded w/ you about some of the work I was doing w/ Ray w/ >> proxy records. But the thing we talked about was the quality of the >> early Trenberth and Paolino SLP gridbox data. you alerted me to some >> of the early problems w/ that dataset. It was very helpful. I was >> young and naive! >> anyway, it made a very positive impression on me that you were so >> approachable. im' sure many others agree. >> >> got to run to my flight now. talk later, >> >> mike >> >> Phil Jones wrote: >>> >>> Mike, >>> This is fine. I don't remember talking to you at IUGG in Boulder ! >>> I am approachable though and have talked to lots of people. I get >>> people >>> coming up to me now saying we met in 199? and have no recall >>> of our meeting - sometime no recall of even going to the meeting >>> where I was supposed to have met them! >>> >>> Another thanks for putting this all togther. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 22:04 14/06/2008, you wrote: >>>> Hi Phil, >>>> >>>> I've attached a copy of my nomination letter. I just want to make >>>> sure I've got all my facts right--please let me know if there is >>>> anything I've gotten wrong or should be changed. I would be shocked >>>> is this doesn't go through--you're a no-brainer, and long overdue >>>> for this. >>>> >>>> I've got letters from 3 of the 5 other letter writers now, waiting >>>> on the 2 last ones, then will submit the package. >>>> >>>> talk to you alter, >>>> >>>> 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 3982. 2008-06-19 11:08:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at, "'michele'" , "'David Frank'" date: Thu Jun 19 11:08:20 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AW: EI-paper to: maurizio.maugeri@cinfai.it, Reinhard Boehm Reinhard, A few thoughts. Can you concentrate on the sections after the introduction? I wouldn't put in anything about solar and volcanic forcing. The diagrams you have are out of date and the subject is changing rapidly. I'd omit the model run. I can help you write the Introduction setting the stage for the rest of the paper. What I don't want to be said is something like the following: - a climate model says it was cooler before 1850 - trees suggest it was cooler before this time - so we've decided to adjust the observations These are the sorts of simplistic things the skeptics will say. So paper should be indicating the adjustment needed as a result of the Kremsmunster work. The trees and the other proxies are just an aside, and all this would fit better in another paper - not necessarily the one I started. Even suggesting the cold or warm solution to the problem is probably not the way to go. I know this is how we've been talking about the issue, but there are well-known arguments that the temperatures measured before screens are likely biased particularly in the summer season. What a good way of finishing the paper would be is to replot the figure for summer from the IPCC report. I could easily add the GAR average for JJA to the plot. It doesn't matter that one is Central Europe and the other the GAR - as all is relative to a common base period. They will look much the same from 1880 and then diverge a little before. Cheers Phil At 17:59 18/06/2008, maurizio.maugeri@cinfai.it wrote: Dear Reinhard, I'm in favour of just adding one or two comparative figures with the proxy series and cancel the planned section two. Anyway your idea is the best: let's look to the paper when we have finished all the other sections. I have just a short comment to the introduction. The text is very good and gives a clear picture of the situation, but I do not like very much the last sentence. Here you refer to previous attempts on EIP-climate data reconstruction and analysis and give some references. But the list of references seems to be rather poor as, e.g. the Central England record is not included. Of course we can considere all the important records that were analysed, but if the focus is on Europe it seems not easy to get a complete list of all the relevat pepers, reports, etc. So my suggestion is: i) to start the sentence introducting the reader to the HISTALP data set, ii) to write that even though some analyses of the HISTALP EIP-climate records are available (here we can really give all the relevant references) so far none of them tackled the EIP-problem and iii) to give the goal of our paper. As far as the special issue of Climatic Change is considered, I suggest to check what other contributions will be included in it. I partecipated in 2002 to a special number which included the results of the EU-IMPROVE project. The result was very good (we produced also a book which included a CD with the station data) and I'm happy with it, but there is also a negative side-effect. In many cases the pepers that refer to this results refer to the editors of this special number (i.e. they refer to Camuffo and Jones (eds), 2002)) and so the 2 papers on the Milan records that are included in this special issue have probably less citations than they would have if I published them outside such a special issue. Also in your draft you give reference just to the editors.... In our case it seems that such a problem will not be relevant, as the Millenium special issue will probably include papers that cover a wider range of subjects. But anyway let's considere also this problem.... Ciao Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Reinhard Boehm To: [2]'David Frank' Cc: [3]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk ; [4]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [5]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at ; [6]'michele' Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 8:51 AM Subject: AW: AW: EI-paper Hi David, Thanks fort he compliment, but there is still something to do, before the draft is finished. Nevertheless thank you also for your comments. As to the authors question you were mentioning earlier, I am aware that we should include somebody else, and I am also not afraid of having many authors (I think you know our list of the Auer et al, 2007 HISTALP-paper), but let us postpone the question till I see clearer how intensively the proxies will be described in section 2. I have mentioned them shortly already now in the introduction and I am playing with the idea to only add one or two comparative figures with all those mentioned proxy series and cancel the planned section two. In this case I would not include too many additional co-authors, just mentioning the sources for the figure. In case we really write a longer section two, then I expect to receive something like one page of text from each new co. But let me decide on that after having finished all the sections except section two, look how long it then is and then decide on doing a longer section two (with several additional cos then) or not. Regarding you and Johann, the story is different. You were the two which really started the thing going with your two papers therefore it is no question og having you two in the team. And I also have a little Hintergedanken that you might be so kind to perform a perfect language trimming at the end to make my Austro-English a bit better than I can do. Is this allright? Best regards Reinhard P.S.: I hope you all agree that I would prefer to send the paper to Climatic Change. This makes my situation easier, because I have promised Rudolf Brazdil several months ago to write something about the early instrumental period for a special issue devoted to the Millennium project. So using our paper for this makes sense I think and helps me with my time problems, and it has finally kicked me to postpone other things and really start writing our paper now. By the way, Phil, Rudolf is rather optimistic that an online version of the paper will not have the usual Climatic Change delays. This relies also on keeping our own deadline (early July), but I see no problem on that. _______________________________________________________________________________ Von: David Frank [[7]mailto:david.frank@wsl.ch] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2008 07:04 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: AW: EI-paper Hi Reinhard, That is a big jump between having an outline and a draft in a short amount of time! (I wish i could do this too...) Included in the text are a some minor comments/suggestions. Most of these go in the direction of trying to help a reader who is not aware of the EI problem, realize more quickly how/why this might be a problem. I still like the idea to include the modelling aspect as part of a composite figure with proxy evidence. Best wishes, David Dear Maurizio, dear all Find attached yesterday's new version of the paper. It contains a rather detailed "Introduction" which already shortly discusses the proxy evidence. This may serve, as You Maurizio and also Phil claimed for, to keep the proxy section short enough and thus leave more place for the core of the paper. What would be nice for the (still missing) proxy section would be (one?) comparative Figure showing several (all?) proxi records together. But the problem is that not all of them are really reconstructed temperatures - so what to do with things like "dust content", delta 18O, ©? Finally I want to draw your attention on the short section in the introduction on natural forcings and on respective modelling results. I am still in favour of at least mentioning this, although the majority of you seems not really to like it. Maybe you change your mind having had a look at the examples shown in the second attached file (I hope the German captions are not too enigmatic for some of you, I took the examples from my new book which is in German). Best regards Reinhard _______________________________________________________________________________ Von: Maurizio Maugeri [[8]mailto:maurizio.maugeri@unimi.it] Gesendet: Montag, 16. Juni 2008 18:42 An: Reinhard Boehm Betreff: Re: EI-paper Dear Reinhard, I agree with you. The paper will probably benefit of an additional section on "the evidence for the ei problem". Anyway I suggest a not-too-long section and I'm not so in favour of including a part on the models. I think that we should concentrate on the main focus of the paper (the correction of the EI series) and so I suggest to considere the section on "the evidence for the ei problem" as a section that clearly explains why we have to concern with a bias in the EI records. But can model data help us to do that? Ciao Maurizio ----- Original Message ----- From: [9]Reinhard Boehm To: [10]'Maurizio Maugeri' ; [11]'michele' ; [12]'Phil Jones' ; [13]johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at ; [14]'David Frank' Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:22 PM Subject: EI-paper Friends, Find attached my proposal for the structure of our common paper. Please comment on it, I am going to start writing then soon. Please comment particularly on the section about "evidence for the ei-problem©". For this I have already received several contributions (of about 1 page each) from the proxy-people. The intention of this section is to illustrate existing systematic biases instrumental vs. proxy or not. I think this is a necessary section, but it increases of course the length of the paper. I am in favour of doing it, but I would like to hear your comments. Of course then we have to increase also the number of co-authors by the following persons: Karin Koinig (lake sediments, Univ. Innsbruck), Dietmar Wagenbach (Icecores, Univ. Heidelberg) and Jürg Lutherbacher (Grapeharvest Swiss plateau, Univ. Bern). I also would like to ask Eduardo Zorita (GKSS) to send the GAR-section of their ERIK-model runs, which would add another independent information. For your information I have attached two of his historic model runs he sent me some months ago for my "Heiße Luft"-Book. What you see on the attached file is JJAS-average over continental Europe. If GAR is not too different from it, this would again be a hint towards our new corrected datasets. Looking forward to your comments Best regards Reinhard Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-06-16.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E6) Attachment converted: MacDave:FORCING-MODELLING-EXAMPLES.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002044E7) Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1269. 2008-06-19 13:35:50 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu Jun 19 13:35:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: ARCC to: "Jim Hall" , "Clare Goodess" Jim, Clare is off the rest of this week and next. I'll send an email to someone here to make sure the costings get done for this, and arrange for Tim Osborn to make sure they get done. I'm away Mon-Thurs next week. Colin will be the best person to do most of the work, so 12 months will be fine for that. An issue here is that Colin has money through until 2010, so we may have to juggle who actually gets paid and does the work later. This is an outline bid at the moment anyway, so the project won't start until the second half of 2009 presumably. I see an email from Pam, which says we're working towards a start date of 01/06/09 and 36 months. I'll put some time down for myself, but not too much as we tend to lose most of this. Put down Clare for 9 months spread throughout the project ( 3 in each year). I'll get myself put down for 3 months, one for each year. Pro-rata these two down if they get too high. Janice Darch and/or Tim will send costings to Pam and yourself. Cheers Phil At 11:23 19/06/2008, Jim Hall wrote: Clare, Phil Thanks for your comments on the ARCADIA proposal, which I'm pulling together today. I have explicitly mentioned persistence/hot spells and have upped the UEA input accordingly (to 12 months total). Can you clarify how the various inputs will be handled. I assume: Phil: CoI with some FEC time allocation Clare: CoI researcher, with some proportion (what?) of the 12 months Colin: researcher, with the remainder of the 12 months 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 [1]http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/profiles2/njh57 MSc in Flood Risk Management: [2]http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/flexiblelearning/frm.php Journal of Flood Risk Management: [3]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jfrm_enhanced/ >-----Original Message----- >From: Clare Goodess [[4]mailto:C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 22 May 2008 10:29 >To: Phil Jones; Jim Hall >Cc: C G Kilsby; Richard Dawson; a.watkinson@uea.ac.uk >Subject: Re: ARCC > >Hi Jim > >Many thanks for this. It looks a strong proposal with a good >stakeholder team already on board. So yes, as Phil has already >said we would like to be involved. > >I have one general question for Chris and Phil - which is >relevant to any work we might do on the weather generator as >part of ARCC, and is >- are there any issues that we need to consider in relation to >UKCIP08, particularly if the intention is to develop a >publicly-available revision of what is available in the user >interface. Maybe we need to have some informal discussion with >UKCIP, BADC and DEFRA on this issue. > >Task 1, refers to temperature and rainfall, but presumably >there is also interest in the other wgen variables such as radiation? > >In Task 2, will it be possible to look at joint probability >climate events? > >In Task 5 - would it be possible to make use of UEA Tyndall's >visualisation facilities? > >Given Phil's comments below, your second point in Task 1 >'Uncertainty/sensitivity analysis of extremes and persistence' >could be rephrased to something like 'Uncertainty/sensitivity >analysis of extremes and improved simulation of persistence'. > >I assume the UEA RA time would primarily be for Colin Harpham, >and the FEC days would be for Phil. If possible, I would like >to have some named involvement in this proposal (though would >anticipate a larger role in the critical infrastructure >proposal) - so would be good to have a little salary for me as >well (e.g., a month at most). > >Are the Hadley Centre happy to be involved as a stakeholder, >i.e., with no funding?! > >Best wishes, Clare > >At 16:53 20/05/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Jim, >> I had a brief phone conversation with Chris yesterday. >Some of the >> thoughts there on adapting the WG to better simulate hot dry spells >> would fit in here. These spells would clearly be more felt in urban >> environments as opposed to the countryside, as they are >already that >> little bit warmer. Chris and I talked about getting the >drier spells >> to warm up more quickly - as happens in reality sometimes. It isn't >> just the mean temperatures. >> Here's a few examples of the UHIs for London based on max and min >> temps for DJF and JJA. >> An interesting aspect of this work which was for the GLA is that >> a) there isn't much of a trend in the differences over time (so the >> UHI isn't getting worse) and b) for max temps the outer London site >> at LHR has higher temps than LWC. >> Getting the spells better in the WG is crucial, as it is the >> spells that have the impacts. >> >> So yes to being involved if the study could incorporate >this aspect. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> PS The joint CRU/Tyndall garden at Chelsea won an award >> >> [5]http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/media/news/latest_news.shtml >> >> >>At 12:41 20/05/2008, Jim Hall wrote: >> >>>Dear Clare >>> >>>In Sheffield we discussed potential joint bids to ARCC. >Attached is a >>>draft outline and spreadsheet work plan for the first of two we >>>discussed. This one deals with integrated assessment of >climate change >>>in cities, building strongly on the Tyndall Cities work, so is >>>submitted as a Tyndall Centre bid. The next, which I will get to you >>>by the end of this week, will deal with national-scale analysis of >>>critical infrastructure and will be based on a smaller consortium. >>> >>>Please can you/Phil: >>>1. let me know whether you are interested in being involved in this >>>proposal 2. let me have any comments on the outline, especially your >>>potential role in it. I recognise that the attached is twice as long >>>as permitted >>>- I will edit and compress when we are ready to submit. >>>3. take a look at the outline resource allocation. Even >though this is >>>only an outline proposal we need to generate reasonably >accurate costs. >>> >>>If you would like to give me a call to discuss, please ring me this >>>week, as I will be on holiday next week. Otherwise, can you >send your >>>comments to me by Friday 30 May. I will then get going with the Jes >>>outline proposal form and will require costing inputs from >UEA for that. >>> >>> >>>Best wishes >>> >>>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 >>>[6]http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/profiles2/njh57 >>> >>>MSc in Flood Risk Management: >>>[7]http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cegs.cpd/flexiblelearning/frm.php >>> >>>Journal of Flood Risk Management: >>>[8]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/jfrm_enhanced/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>Prof. Phil Jones >>Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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: [9]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ > [10]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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3627. 2008-06-19 14:45:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jun 19 14:45:25 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: EIP-draft to: "Reinhard Boehm" , "'Maurizio Maugeri'" , "'michele'" , "'Johann Hiebl'" , "'David Frank'" Reinhard et al, Attached is the series that was used in the IPCC Chapter (i.e Box 3.6 Figure 2). To get those numbers you just average months 6-8 from each of the lines. The 13th number is the annual average. Some proxy series illustrating the issue would be fine. I just think the model simulations are too much I'd include proxy series that have annual timescale resolution, so grape harvests fine. Where the smooth transition between the proxy and the instrumental issues goes is debateable. It could be here, but only if it were for the documentary type data (i.e. not trees). Happy not to get a revised draft until next week. I'm in Zurich some of next week at a meeting Rob Allan is organizing. Cheers Phil At 13:41 19/06/2008, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Dear all, Thanks for your recent comments everybody sent me so far, thanks Phil for offering to produce the final version of the introduction. In the mean time I have re-written it myself a little and also the whole text has grown. I hope to have it ready by Monday latest, and I think it is wise not to send you another piece right now but to rather pose the finished draft to your disposal, remarks etc. then. I have already included most of your remarks and corrections you sent so far. Just one thing, Phil: Yes I have planned to use the CE-mean longterm temperature series (it is the one from a box in your chapter of the IPCC-WG1 report I suppose?). Can You send me the data, just to present it in common style. And one question right now: I still think that at least showing some proxy series to illustrate what I have written in one short paragraph in the introduction would be good to visualise what this warm bias possibly is about. Of course we must make it clear that we have not used proxy information for adjusting. As I see already from the length of the text I have so far, the proxy section must really be kept short in this paper, and I hope that you will include them in a broader sense in your follow up paper? And for this I would also suggest to include more than we produced in ALP-IMP, but also some of the mentioned things from lakes, grape harvests? I hope that You have in mind such things in order to advertise the idea of an early instrumental period is one of a smooth transition from proxy based reconstructions (prior to 1750) to pure instrumental (after 1860). I planned to do this at the end of this paper, but maybe it is better to postpone it for the following one. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4915. 2008-06-20 00:42:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:42:58 -0400 (EDT) from: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz subject: JOC-08-0160 - Invitation to Review to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk 20-Jun-2008 Dear Prof. Jones Manuscript # JOC-08-0160 entitled "Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity" 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=SNhBkfsBFhrSmXjNGmsH 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, Prof. Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology MANUSCRIPT DETAILS TITLE: Spurious correlations between recent warming and indices of local economic activity AUTHORS: Schmidt, Gavin ABSTRACT: I analyse a series of climate model simulations of the 20th Century to investigate a number of published correlations between indices of local economic activity and recent global warming. These correlations have been used to support a hypothesis that the observed surface warming record has been contaminated in some way and thus overestimates true global warming. However, the basis of the results are correlations over a very restricted set of locations (predominantly western Europe, Japan and the US) which project strongly onto naturally occurring patterns of climate variability. Across model simulations the correlations vary widely due to the chaotic weather component in any short term record. I find that the reported correlations do not significantly fall outside the simulated distribution and that the correlations are probably spurious (i.e. are likely to have arisen from chance alone). Thus, though this study can not prove that the global temperature record is unbiased, I conclude there is no strong evidence from these correlations of any large scale contamination. 3435. 2008-06-20 09:08:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jun 20 09:08:41 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Re: we arrived in MOHC to: Dear Qingxiang, Here's some comments on the latest draft of the manuscript. There are 2-3 sentences that I do not understand and I have made many changes to the English. The most important thing you need to do is around Tables 5 and 6. You are estimating the UHI using all 187 stations and then with 129. What you also need to do is to develop a series with the 58 urban sites. Then the UHI effect will be the difference between the 58 and the 129. Using the difference between the 187 and 129 reduces the effect. I think that doing the difference between the 58 and 129 will at most double the result you have. Remember that we got 0.1 deg C/decade in the JGR paper. I think you should be getting a larger number than the 0.01 deg C/ decade that you have now, but not as much as 0.1. Probably you will get 0.02 to 0.03 deg C/decade if you difference the 58 from the 129. Also, (I didn't mark this is the manuscript) it is best to talk of differences between the UHI effects (and the land-use changes) in absolute terms rather than in the percentage terms you use on p13/14. You can still show that urban and land-use effects are very small compared to the rest of the warming. I'm away next week. I'll be back in CRU on June 27. Cheers Phil At 09:24 19/06/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I dicussed the paper with Ren Guoyu, and he admitted that NE China was a special region. When I mentioned the abrupt change of series, he said he is also thinking about this. And he told me that they found some large UHI effect in some small region in SW China recently. But he didnot show me the text (In Chinese). So I think it is the time we submit our paper. BTW: Our In Box article to BAMS: A mainland China Homogenized Historical Temperature Dataset of 1951-2004 (CHHT Version 1.0) by Li, Zhang, Chen,Li,Liu and Jones has been forwarded to editor office in June 9, the package number is 9981, the editor is Jeff Rosenfeld. Thank you. Best Regards Qingxiang ======= 2008-06-04 23:15:50 ÄúÔÚÀ´ĐÅÖĐĐ´µÀ£º======= > > Qingxiang, > Here's some comments on the paper. I stopped half way through. > I need to read the analysis section more carefully and I don't have >more time today. > I will look later. > > In the mean time here is where I have got to. > > I need to understand your logic at times. I think I understand why >you are using > the NCEP data from 1979. The text still comes over as though you >are suggesting > that UHIs and land use and land cover changes account for most of >the changes. >I don't think this is the case, so you need to clearer at the >beginning what your main > conclusions are. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 18:25 02/06/2008, you wrote: >>Dear Phil, >> >>Thank you for the good news from AGU. >> >>We find some difficulties to use internet here in Exeter. so we are >>checking emails in the Central library in Exeter. >>Yes, we spent about 8 hours in London, and visted British Meseum, >>Bakinham Palace and Oxford street, and bought something for the >>family people, and then got the train to the respective >>destinations. Our journey seemed pretty good. >> >>I nearly finished the urbanization paper (draft) during these days, >>I will send to you, I have inclded you as a coauthor, Please tell me >>about your thoughts. >> >>We need to go now. >> >>cheers >> Qingxiang >> >> >> > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 >School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 >University of East Anglia >Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk >NR4 7TJ >UK >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡liqx@cma.gov.cn ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡2008-06-19 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 703. 2008-06-21 06:59:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 06:59:07 -0700 from: Spiritual Leader of the Global Community subject: Federation of Global Governments essential services Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id m5LE30lQ028708 Federation of Global Governments essential services [1]Links to previous Newsletters are shown here Volume 6 Issues 6 June 2008 [2]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GIMProceedings/GNewsJuly2008.htm Politics and Justice without borders theme Federation of Global Governments essential services are offering the " Global Movement to Help " by Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community [3]Federation of Global Governments essential services See website of [4]Essential services [5]GIM daily proclamations main website This Newsletter's authors of articles on global issues Mir Adnan Aziz, Walden Bello, Shepherd Bliss , Patrick Bond, Gary Brecher, Michel Chossudovsky, Germain Dufour, Ali al-Fadhily, Joshua Frank, Aquene Freechild, Dahr Jamail, Michael T. Klare, Thandokuhle Manzi, Dr. Leo Rebello, Charles Sullivan, , Shiney Varghese Theme paper for this month Federation of Global Governments essential services are offering the " Global Movement to Help " by Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community Summary As a first step to getting help, all nations can and should approve those first three sections on the Scale of Global Rights.[6] Scale of Global Rights The approval would supersede the political and physical borders of participating member nations. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) would have the approval from all member nations to give immediate help, bypassing normal government protocols. Somewhat like an emergency unit but at the global level. That is what those first three sections mean. They represent an efficient and immediate emergency response to help. First, participating member nations need to give their approval to the GPA. The GPA is a global organization much like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for trade between nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) for health, or the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFT), South American Community of Nations (SACON) for trade and economics. The GPA offers an efficient emergency response to help. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate and efficient response to help. There are also long term solutions. As with the short term solution, the most significant long term solution is also related to the Scale of Global Rights. The Scale was entrenched in the Global Constitution and is thus the fundamental guide to Global Law. Now the Scale of Global Rights is a long term solution and is also a part of the Global Movement to Help of the Global Community. The Scale was designed to help all life on Earth. What would be preferable is that nations unite amongst themselves to help. Over time, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, the South American Community of Nations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Except for the UN, these organizations are mainly concerned with trade and economics. The Global Community offers a more meaningful union in the form of nine or more Global Governments. For instance the South American Community of Nations can be a Global Government by simply accepting the Global Constitution as a way of dealing between member nations. A Global Government is concerned not only with economics and trade, but also with the environment, health, agriculture, energy, food, social, cultural and many other essential aspects. The Federation of Global Governments is the place of meeting between Global Governments. The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. All of them are already in operation on a small scale. Introduction[7] Introduction to Federation of Global Governments essential services are offering theGlobal Movement to Help Key words: Global essential services, Global Community, Federation of Global Governments, Global rights, Scale of Global Rights, global citizens, Global Parliament, Global Protection Agency (GPA), Global Information Media (GIM), Earth Government, Earth Executive Council, House of Elected Representatives, House of Advisers, Global Ministries, Ombudspersons Office, volunteering for the Global Community, Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) [8]Earth Government [9]Global Community [10]Federation of Global Governments [11]Global Parliament [12]Earth Executive Council [13]Essential services [14]Ministries [15]House of Representatives [16]House of Advisers [17]Portal of the Global Community The Global Community is now applying more emphasis on the urgent need from the people of all nations to give everyone essential services. The Global Community has already declared a planetary state of emergency wich brought up the need of the " Global Community Movement to Help ". [18] The Global Community Peace Movement has declared a planetary state of emergency [19]Planetary state of emergency We have shown that several events have contributed to the planetary state of emergency: A) widespread poverty and hunger in more than half the world population B) The global warming of the planet due to human activities C) Climate change D) Economic and military invasion of nations by the United States and NATO E) Absence of fair and democratic global governance at the United Nations and European Union F) Our global environment and global life-support systems are threatened by: * any of the above mentioned events * pollution worldwide * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads over the bottom of the Indian ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave in 2004. [20] [cid:part16.485D092B.707B271D@telus.net] Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it. * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. [21] [cid:part15.485D092B.707B271D@telus.net] Today, earquakes, cyclones and other natural disasters require a rapid and efficient response from the world to help those in needs. We need to be organized and ready to help. We need all nations to be a part of this Global Movement to Help. In the chaos after the magnitude 7.9 earthquake in China, which made 5 million homeless, many survivors were separated from their families. Burma was hit by a cyclone at the beginning of the month of May, leaving over two million persons in need of emergency relief. Thousands of children and parents have been separated. Nowadays, natural and human made disasters have become more frequent and require a rapid response to help. The Global Community offers both a short term solution and a long term solution to the people of all nations. Both solutions have been integrated in the Scale of Global Rights[22] Scale of Global Rights , itself a necessary first step which must be approved by all global citizens. The Scale of Global Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on. [23]Scale of Global Rights ( [24]see enlargement ) Scale of Global Rights Artwork by Germain Dufour May 1, 2008 Scale of Global Rights Article 103 of the Global Constitution: [25] The 28 Chapters of the Global Constitution Scale of Global Rights[26] Scale of Global Rights in the Global Constitution The Scale of Global Rights contains six (6) sections. Section 1 has more importance than all other sections below, and so on. Concerning sections 1, 2, and 3, it shall be the Global Community highest priority to guarantee these rights to their respective Member Nations and to have proper legislation and implement and enforce global law as it applies and as shown in the Global Constitution. Section 1. Ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems Section 2. Primordial human rights * safety and security * have shelter * 'clean' energy * a 'clean' and healthy environment * drink fresh water * breath clean air * eat a balance diet and * basic clothing. Section 3. The ecological rights, the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights of future generations Concerning Sections 4, 5 and 6, it shall be the aim of the Global Community to secure these other rights for all global citizens within their respective Member Nations but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rights are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the Global Community to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation. Section 4. Community rights, rights of direct democracy and global voting, and the right that the greatest number of people has by virtue of its number (50% plus one) and after voting representatives democratically Section 5. Economic rights (business and consumer rights, and their responsibilities and accountabilities) and social rights (civil and political rights) Section 6. Cultural rights and religious rights As a first step to getting help, all nations can and should approve those first three sections on the Scale. The approval would supersede the political and physical borders of participating member nations. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) would have the approval from all member nations to give immediate help, bypassing normal government protocols. Somewhat like an emergency unit but at the global level. That is what those first three sections mean. They represent an efficient and immediate emergency response to help. First, participating member nations need to give their approval to the GPA. The GPA is a global organization much like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for trade between nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) for health, or the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFT), South American Community of Nations (SACON) for trade and economics. The GPA offers an efficient emergency response to help. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate and efficient response to help. There are also long term solutions. As with the short term solution, the most significant long term solution is also related to the Scale of Global Rights. The Scale was entrenched in the Global Constitution and is thus a fundamental guide to Global Law. The work of the Global Community, the global civil society, and the determination of government worldwide, make it possible for everyone to comply with the Global Law. Building global communities requires a mean to enforce Global Law for the protection of life on Earth. Global Civilization guides humanity for the building of global communities. This is a great opportunity for globallateralism. Global Law includes legislation covering all aspects of human activities. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) will train and lead a global force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. The GPA will enforce the law. And that is a long term solution to the planetary state of emergency we offer the Global Community. And that is also how we can stop the global warming of the planet and protect the global life-support systems, thus largely improving the quality of life of the next generations. As we enact Global Law, we will begin to take on a much deeper kind of global leadership, one that earns more respect than envy and more gratitude than hatred, one that can catapult the whole planet forward into a future where war is no longer thinkable between nation-states and a legitimate and beneficial global government is able to cope with global problems. Year 1985 has seen the beginning of the Global Community objective to help all life on Earth. At its early stages of development, the Global Community struggled to establish itself as a Global Movement to Help all people, all life on Earth. [27]Global Movement to Help ( [28]see enlargement ) Global Movement to Help Artwork by Germain Dufour June 1st, 2008 The definition of the Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. Since year 1985 the Global Community has organized the Global Dialogue to probe the Peoples of the world, people from all nations, as to what it will take to make living on Earth sustainable, now and for the next generations. Results were published in our Proceedings. [29] Global Proceedings of the Global Community Global Rights year one[30] Global Rights year one is a new impetus of the Global Community to educate everyone about the need for a change in thinking and of doing things amongst all nations. We need to realize what is a priority, what is the most important, and what is the least important for our survival. We need to make hard choices. We need a clear vision. We need a common vision. And we must all change! There are many important aspects of our lives we can no longer do, or should never do anymore. They are destructive. Humanity and all life can no longer afford activities that destroy life and the global environment. And there are other activities we must do, certainly thousands of them, to assure the survival of life on Earth. In view of the planetary state of emergency we all must change, we must do things differently to give life on Earth a better survival chance. And this is what Global Rights year one is about: to establish global fundamentals and a clear vision to follow, and to offer the people of all nations the Global Movement to Help. Perhaps the Scale of Human and Earth Rights represents the strongest pillar of our vision. In 1985, the Scale of Human and Earth Rights was first proposed as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After several decades of research and development, many global dialogues, we still find the Scale as the best solution to global problems. The Scale has now been titled the Scale of Global Rights. [31] Scale of Global Rights [32]Human and Earth rights [33]Scale of Human and Earth Rights [34]Chapter X of the Global Constitution is about the Scale of Human and Earth Rights Today, we are presenting once more the Scale as the best educating tool to bring about the change the people of the world need to achieve for their own survival. Thus global rights include: * Human rights * Rights of global citizens * Earth rights * Peace and Justice rights for all life as researched and developed by the Global Community * Rights of global politics, and Earth Government * Rights of global justice for all life * Rights of global protection for all life Global rights are defined in details in the section the Scale of Global Rights. [35] [cid:part4.485D092B.707B271D@telus.net] These rights are dependent of their position on the Scale of Global Rights. Now the Scale of Global Rights is a long term solution and is also a part of the Global Movement to Help of the Global Community. The Scale was designed to help all life on Earth. What would be preferable is that nations unite amongst themselves to help. Over time, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, the South American Community of Nations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Except for the UN, these organizations are mainly concerned with trade and economics. The Global Community offers a more meaningful union in the form of nine or more Global Governments. For instance the South American Community of Nations can be a Global Government by simply accepting the Global Constitution as a way of dealing between member nations. A Global Government is concerned not only with economics and trade, but also with the environment, health, agriculture, energy, food, social, cultural and many other essential aspects. The Federation of Global Governments is the place of meeting between Global Governments. [36]Earth Government schematics ( [37]see enlargement ) Earth Government schematics Artwork by Germain Dufour June 1st, 2008 The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. All of them are already in operation on a small scale. [38]Essential services amongst the participating member nations ( [39]see enlargement ) Essential services amongst the participating member nations Artwork by Germain Dufour June 1st, 2008 The House of Elected Representatives, the House of Advisers, and the Global Governments Federation together are the Global Parliament. [40]Global Parliament Jointly with the Earth Executive Council, the Global Parliament enact legislation, and exercise the budgetary function, as well as functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Global Constitution. The Global Parliament elects its President and its officers from among its members. [41]Earth Executive Council The Earth Executive Council consists of a Global Council of nine or more members, and of twenty to thirty Cabinet Ministers, all of whom shall be members of the Global Parliament. Each member of the Global Council is from a different Global Government. Each member of the Cabinet Ministers serves as the head of a department or agency of the Global Administration, and in this capacity is designated as Minister of the particular department or agency. The Global Council, in consultation with the Cabinet Ministers, prepare and present to the Global Parliament near the beginning of each year a proposed program of global legislation, and is responsible for preparing and submitting to the Global Parliament the proposed annual budget, and budgetary projections over periods of years. The Cabinet Ministers shall be elected by simple majority vote of the combined membership of all three houses of the Global Parliament in joint session. Earth Government has already appointed several Cabinet Ministers. We are showing an example of such appointment on the website of the Global Environment Minister, Dr. José G. Vargas-Hernández. [42] Global Environment Minister, Dr. José G. Vargas-Hernández [43]House of Elected Representatives The House of Elected Representatives shall be elected by direct universal suffrage of all the Global Community citizens in free and secret ballot for a term of five years. Representation of the Global Community citizens shall be of one Elected Representative per million people. [44]House of Advisers Candidates to the House of Advisers are nominated by teachers, students, and professional organizations. Global Ministries[45] Earth Government has formed 51 global ministries are a very specific and useful type of symbiotical relationships on Earth. There are urgently needed. Earth Government has formed 51 global ministries for the proper governance of Earth. Global ministries are world wide organizations just like the WTO for trade and therefore should have the same power to rule on cases as that of the World trade Organization (WTO). I believe that there is no greater task in the world today than for the Global Community to proceed through the maturation of its leadership, emerging from a more self-interested adolescence as a global leader into a nobler adulthood. We have the potential to act as a torchbearer for a better tomorrow. Do we heed the call? I hope this message has convinced at least a few people that the question of how to proceed with that maturation is of far deeper significance than the reforming of the United Nations. I thus pray that we move with wisdom, grace, clarity, and love in the days, years, and even decades ahead. [46]Achievements of Global Community WebNet Ltd. Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community ([47]short Bio) The Editor Global Information Media [48]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/globalcommunity.htm [49]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/ [50]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/Portal.htm [51]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/2008GIMglobaldialogue.htm [52]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/2008GDPreview.htm ___________________________________________________________________________________________ About this e-mail You are receiving this newsletter because you have asked to be included in our list, attended a Global Dialogue event or requested information. To stop receiving this e-mail, please e-mail: [53]globalcommunity@telus.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject. Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailG6.gif: 00000001,601f1084,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail51.jpeg: 00000001,03d25206,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailBT.jpeg: 00000001,27859375,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail95.jpeg: 00000001,4b38d4e4,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailBP.jpeg: 00000001,6eec1653,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail44.jpeg: 00000001,129f57d5,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail0R.jpeg: 00000001,36529944,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailJ9.jpeg: 00000001,5a05dab3,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailL7.jpeg: 00000001,7db91c22,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailU6.jpeg: 00000001,31570c17,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailDA.jpeg: 00000001,550a4d86,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailI5.jpeg: 00000001,78bd8ef5,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailAS.jpeg: 00000001,1c70d077,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail9R.jpeg: 00000001,402411e6,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailTU.jpeg: 00000001,63d75355,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail8E1.jpeg: 00000001,078a94d7,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail14.jpeg: 00000001,2b3dd646,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailS4.jpeg: 00000001,4ef117b5,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailS3.jpeg: 00000001,72a45924,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail2P.jpeg: 00000001,6498805c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail97.jpeg: 00000001,084bc1de,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail8Q.jpeg: 00000001,2bff034d,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail2V.jpeg: 00000001,4fb244bc,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailV0.jpeg: 00000001,7365862b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailQG.jpeg: 00000001,1718c7ad,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail7M.jpeg: 00000001,3acc091c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailF4.jpeg: 00000001,5e7f4a8b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail4I.gif: 00000001,02328c0d,00000000,00000000 4586. 2008-06-21 17:00:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:00:05 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: CA to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ammann@ucar.edu This is a confidential email Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the responses and letters up. There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and a third later one. Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim? Most are just rants, but his seem to imply he knows what he's talking about. Cheers Phil PS - don't think I've forgotten Wengen. The best thing to stuff this lot is the Wengen paper coming out. 3424. 2008-06-23 09:47:54 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 23 09:47:54 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Fwd: IPCC FOIA Request to: Tim Osborn , P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,"Caspar Ammann" Caspar I have been of the opinion right from the start of these FOI requests, that our private , inter-collegial discussion is just that - PRIVATE . Your communication with individual colleagues was on the same basis as that for any other person and it discredits the IPCC process not one iota not to reveal the details. On the contrary, submitting to these "demands" undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these "requests". Best wishes Keith At 09:01 23/06/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Caspar, I've just had a quick look at CA. They seem to think that somehow it is an advantage to send material outside the formal review process. But *anybody* could have emailed us directly. It is in fact a disadvantage! If it is outside the formal process then we could simply ignore it, whereas formal comments had to be formally considered. Strange that they don't realise this and instead argue for some secret conspiracy that they are excluded from! I'm not even sure if you sent me or Keith anything, despite McIntyre's conviction! But I'd ignore this guy's request anyway. If we aren't consistent in keeping our discussions out of the public domain, then it might be argued that none of them can be kept private. Apparently, consistency of our actions is important. Best wishes Tim At 07:37 23/06/2008, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: Caspar, In Zurich at MeteoSwiss for a meeting this week. It doesn't discredit IPCC! Cheers Phil > FYI, more later. > Caspar > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Brian Lynch >> Date: June 21, 2008 3:30:28 PM MDT >> To: ammann@ucar.edu >> Subject: IPCC FOIA Request >> Reply-To: killballyowen2003@yahoo.co.uk >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> I have read correspondence on web about your letter to the in >> relation to expert comments on IPCC chapter 6 sent directly by you >> to Keith Briffa, sent outside the formal review process. >> >> The refusal to give these documents tends to discredit you and the >> IPCC in the eyes of the public, >> >> Could I suggest that you make your letter and documents pubic. I >> would be very glad if you gave me a copy and oblige, >> >> Yours faithfully, >> >> Brian Lynch >> Galway >> >> Sent from Yahoo! Mail. >> A Smarter Email. > > 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 > > > > 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/ 3530. 2008-06-23 09:54:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:54:03 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: CA to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,ammann@ucar.edu Hi Phil, Keith and "Confidential Agent Ammann", At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: > This is a confidential email So is this. > Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the > responses and letters up. > There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and > a third later one. > Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim? I've saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read all the comments, but I did note in "Fortress Met Office" that someone has provided a link to a website that helps you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information, then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign. 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 3797. 2008-06-23 16:05:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Jun 23 16:05:35 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: CRU TS3 features. (fwd) to: Ian Harris Harry The P time series I looked at were country means and probably the spatial averaging hid the spikes enough that they weren't such outliers. For T, you may remember that I did find results like that for some countries (Bolivia was one, I think) which probably matches this location and timing. So, yes, we did know about that. The P and T anomalies found here are pre-1950. So for QUEST they are unimportant and thus investigation cannot interrupt QUEST at this stage. But later on we can get back to pre-1950 problems with CRU TS and hopefully solve them. Tim At 15:42 23/06/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, Please can you have a quick look at the attached doc? Did your assessment of CRU TS3.0 T and P show these spikes, I can't remember? Cheers Harry Begin forwarded message: From: David Lister Date: 20 June 2008 17:24:11 BDT To: i.harris@uea.ac.uk Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: CRU TS3 features. (fwd) H, This came from Jureg. Phil was not sure that Juerg has the latest versions of the grids. I thought that he may have. I made the grids available to Juerg on 01/05/08 (but I have deleted the files from the ftp disk). Were there any changes to temp. and precip. after that date. Cheers David ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:43:13 +0200 From: Juerg Luterbacher To: d.lister@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: CRU TS3 features. Dear Phil and David I hope you are very well. First of all thanks very much for your offer using the new gridded 0.5x0.5 CRU TT and prec data. That is great and we already started using them. Please find attached a short docu where we have tried to bring up some features we have found related to south american temperature. Maybe Phil, we will have some time talking about them next week in Zuerich? best wishes and have a good weekend Juerg ------------------------------------------------------ This mail was sent through IMP at [1]http://mail.unibe.ch Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 1165. 2008-06-23 18:03:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:03:50 +0100 from: Steve Jones subject: Significance testing results to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim, As we discussed in our meeting last week, I've recreated my contour comparison figures with significance testing, to show where differences are significant at the 95% level. I've put the figures here: http://www.squaregoldfish.co.uk/sekrett/figures.html To calculate the significance, I used a simplified t-test algorithm that can be used for scenarios where both data sets have the same number of values. I found it on (dare I say it) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test), but I did some quick comparisons between that and the one in the book you gave me, and they came out with the same results. The slightly disappointing result of from the comparisons is that the changes in the subtropical jet stream between 20cm3 and sresa1b (shown in sresa1b_winter_comparison.eps) are not deemed significant, even though the average wind is around 6m/s stronger in all the models. Since this is the largest change seen between the different data sets, it's a shame that it's not significant, and we therefore can't legitimately infer anything from it in terms of changes to the NAM. Is there anything I should do about this at this stage, or should I simply state what's there, and not analyse it further due to the lack of significance? Steve. 3152. 2008-06-24 10:44:53 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones , Thomas R Karl , Kevin Trenberth date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:44:53 -0600 from: Aiguo Dai subject: Re: ET and PDSI to: trenbert@ucar.edu Kevin, Sorry to hear that. I tried to tone down the statements regarding the global implications of the results, as our CLM3-simulated soil moisture (forced by observed precip and temp, etc.) seems to support the conclusion based on our PDSI. The IPCC AR4 also shows (Fig. 10.12) that soil moisture will become drier at northern latitudes even though precip increases there. I think that the calculations of surface evaporation, runoff, soil moisture, and other land surface processes are much more sophisticated in current global climate models than in simple water balance models (like the Palmer model). Thus the climate model results avoid most of the issues dicussed by Hobbins et al. (e.g., related to ET calculation, effects of vegetation, snow cover, changes in humidity, radiation, and winds). Regards, Aiguo Aiguo Kevin Trenberth wrote: Aiguo I can't say that I like this paper at all. Kevin Hi, Phil, Our GRL paper finally has come out. Below is the ref. and a link. Best regards, Aiguo Hobbins, M. T., *A. Dai*, M. L. Roderick, and G. D. Farquhar, 2008: *Revisiting potential evapotranspiration parameterizations as drivers of long-term water balance trends. */Geophys. Res. Lett./, *35*, L12403, doi:10.1029/2008GL033840 (Paper) [1] Phil Jones wrote: Aiguo, Thanks. It wasn't me slowing the ms down! Another factor in addition to wind and radiation is vapour pressure. In case you've not seen the attached here it is. Vapour Pressue and q are going up as T goes up. RH stays much the same. We've submitted a longer paper on this dataset. It is rather short though - only going back to 1973. Cheers Phil At 16:49 14/02/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, The manuscript is attached, which took a while to get through the review process, but look like it will be accepted after some revision. The main conclusion is that changes in wind speed and sfc radiation may be important in water balance calculation for wet regions. Because the PDSI model considers only T and P changes, its application over wet, energy-limited regions may be questionable. We still need to work out this on a global basis. On the other hand, the PDSI results from Dai et al. (2004) illustrate the potential drying from surface warming and precip changes alone, and this drying appears to have happened over many regions (e.g., most Africa, etc.). Aiguo Phil Jones wrote: Aiguo, I hear you're doing a paper with Hobbins, Roderick and Farquhar. Is it possible to send me a copy of 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 [2]p.jones@uea.ac.uk [3] NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: [4]adai@ucar.edu [5] Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [6]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ [7] Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, 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 [8]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: [9]adai@ucar.edu Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [10]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA ___________________ Kevin Trenberth Climate Analysis Section, NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder CO 80307 ph 303 497 1318 [11]http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html -- Aiguo Dai, Scientist Email: [12]adai@ucar.edu Climate & Global Dynamics Division Phone: 303-497-1357 National Center for Atmospheric Research Fax : 303-497-1333 P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA [13]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/ Street Address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305, USA 526. 2008-06-24 12:22:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:22:55 +0100 from: Clare Rush subject: Lowcarbon.com - free course ads offer to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I hope you don't mind me contacting you. We run a website called lowcarbon.com which advertises jobs, courses and events in the renewable energy, energy efficiency, climate and carbon sectors. We are currently offering free unlimited course advertising until the end of the year. No catches or future obligation. You can either post ads onto the site yourself or send them over for us to put on. At the moment we are advertising a Ph.D. Studentship for Dr. Andrew Manning - Carbon Dioxide Measurements from U.K. Islands in the South Atlantic Ocean. I hope this is of interest, if you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me on 01392 690010. Kind regards Clare Rush lowcarbon.com ------------------------------------------------- www.lowcarbon.com t. +44 (0)1392 690010 e. clare@lowcarbon.com 5305. 2008-06-26 14:38:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jun 26 14:38:23 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: in confidence to: Edward Cook Only you could confuse me with a yes or no answer!!! Is it yes or no? When I have finished reviewing it (to ensure independence) I would value a few words with you about it Keith At 14:27 26/06/2008, you wrote: No. Could this a paper by Richard Duncan? See, I just can't say "NO". ================================== 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 ================================== On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: \Ed have you been asked to review a paper by the New Zealanders for Nature? Just yes or no cheers Keith -- 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/ -- 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/ 2043. 2008-06-27 12:14:13 ______________________________________________________ cc: k.heywood@uea.ac.uk date: Fri Jun 27 12:14:13 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: SST Undergraduate Dissertation to: John.Matthews@uea.ac.uk Robin, Our links are back. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ and the last linked document at the bottom of the page, 17Mb. Cheers Phil Robin, Happy to do this, but there are a number of papers you ought to read. I'll give you a few links to look at. We have been doing a lot of work in this area over about the last 25 years. The CRU web site seems to be down, so I'll send one link later when it's back. There shouldn't be much of a difference between ERSST and HadSST2. I suspect some of the differences you've noticed relate to whether bucket-type corrections were incorporated or not, or whether there were recent changes made to incorporate satellite measurements. It is important to get version numbers on these datasets. You mention various types of buckets, however most measurements now (at least since the 1950s) have been made using engine intakes and insulated buckets. The paper I've attached is the latest one on the Hadley Centre dataset. This shouldn't be that different from HadISST, but the latter is spatially infilled, so it can be used for driving GCMs. HadISST is Rayner et al. (2003) in the atatched. What Rayner et al 2006 have done is the generally accepted adjustments that have to be made. Versions of ERSST have also had these adjustments made. There is a new version of ERSST due out very soon in J. Climate by Smith and Reynolds. What you'd need to do in a project would be to get the raw measurements for the ship track you followed from ICOADS. [2]http://icoads.noaa.gov/ . Worth getting the air temperatures as well, as they have a different set of problems. With data from the 1970s onwards the raw values should include the measurement method. There will also be loads of drifters in the region in recent years and maybe some fixed buoys. These measure SSTs slightly different from ships. ICOADS is all unadjusted (i.e. as measured data). What would be a useful aspect to look at is the recent problem of fewer ship obs and many more drifting buoys. Attached is a paper that mentions this in its final sentence, and a ppt from John Kennedy at the Met Office. All issues with SSTs can generally only be solved with large sample numbers, so the numbers of obs you have are unlikely to be enough, hence my suggestion to get the ICOADS data. Cheers Phil At 16:48 26/06/2008, you wrote: Dr Jones, I am a final year ENV student in Geophysical Sciences and have just returned from my year abroad in North America (at the University of British Columbia, UBC). Over the past six weeks I have been on a research cruise across the central equatorial Pacific from Tahiti to Hawaii. I will be using the data I collected along the ship's transect for my undergraduate dissertation. I wish my final year project to be around the theme of comparing different historical methodologies of measuring Sea Surface Temperatures (SSTs). Originally I planned to do a climate modelling project under Dr Tim Lenton. I wish to contribute to the debate surrounding whether global warming is more likely to lead to El Nino-like or La Nina-like conditions in the tropical Pacific. It has been noted that the NOAA ERSST and the UK Hadley Centre HadISST datasets show opposite and incompatible trends in SST for this region over the past century. It has been suggested that the main discrepancies between these two records (which occur around the 1930s and 1980s) could be the result of methodological changes in SST measurement. I understand that you have been involved with correcting SST records for historical changes in measurement techniques. The abstract for the research paper I completed on ship is attached. I was taking measurements of the temperature of surface seawater sampled in wood, canvas and Zubrycki buckets. The purpose was to discover whether the different bucket types (all used historically for SST measurements) would influence the SST recorded. My contact at UEA with regards this project has been Dr Karen Heywood. Whilst she is willing to act as my supervisor, perhaps you would be more suitable due to your previous research experience on this topic. I will not be returning to UEA until the start of the autumn semester (around September 22nd), but wish to work on my project in the meantime. My UEA advisor is Dr Jenni Barclay. Thanks for your time, Robin Matthews Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4268. 2008-06-27 16:44:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:44:31 +0200 from: Walter Oberhuber subject: Re: data format to: Tom Melvin Tom, here they are. Raw measurement files of Larix decidua (Larix.rwl) and Pinus cembra (Pinus.rwl). Have a nice weekend, Walter Tom Melvin schrieb: > Walter, > > If you send me the raw measurement data my program will produce a blank > pith offset file in which you can fill in the numbers. > > Tom > > > > At 06:29 27/06/2008, you wrote: > >> Tom, >> regarding pith offset data: as I understand, these are the number of >> years missing to the pith for each tree ring-series - or do you need >> each tree ring series arranged according to cambial age, i.e. starting >> with no. 1 if pith was present (instead of absolutely dated tree rings). >> >> If you let me have an example-file for both, ring series and >> pith-offset data, I will format accordingly. >> >> Thank you for your assistance, >> Walter >> >> >> Tom Melvin schrieb: >> >>> Walter, >>> For Ring measurements the programs read Tucson, Compact or Heidelberg >>> formats or I can convert Excel to columns of text and then read >>> these. The pith offset data needs a separate file which I can create >>> from Heidelberg or Excel. (Text in any format is usually easier to >>> handle in Fortran than than Excel spreadsheets). >>> If you send the data I can set it up to run in my programs. This will >>> use two programs which have little in the form of help and are in the >>> process of being upgraded. The RCS program is designed to let you >>> choose from a number of options. Once set up I could send you data >>> and programs. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> At 09:45 26/06/2008, you wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Tom, >>>> now I found time to read your paper on the standardisation >>>> procedures applied in dendroclimatological studies and the possible >>>> effect on observed divergence between recent tree growth and climate >>>> warming. >>>> >>>> Based on conclusions you made, I would like to test our results >>>> (published in Trees 2008) again, but chronologies developed and >>>> analysed >>>> at this site reach to 2000 only (hence recent years with summer >>>> heat-waves are not included). On the other hand, we recently >>>> developed larch (Larix decidua) and stone pine (Pinus cembra) >>>> chronologies from treeline sites in the Eastern Alps, which also >>>> include the most recent period up to 2007. I can prepare an >>>> excel-sheet including raw measurement values of all individual ring >>>> series with estimated pith-offset (i.e., approximately 60 larch and >>>> 60 stone pine ring series from 4 mixed stands). >>>> >>>> I am very interested in running these data through the >>>> standardization programs you developed (especially the signal-free >>>> method and RCS method) to see, whether an adequate increasing radial >>>> growth trend is detectable in both treeline species as we would >>>> expect due to climate warming. >>>> >>>> Since you are much more familiar with these standardization >>>> procedures than I am, I can e-mail you an excel-file including the >>>> whole data set (as soon as I have added pith-offset values). >>>> Otherwise, if you let me have your programs, I will have a try. >>>> >>>> Please let me know, if excel-format is OK. >>>> >>>> Greetings from Innsbruck, >>>> Walter >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Address: >>>> Dr. Walter Oberhuber >>>> University of Innsbruck >>>> Institute of Botany >>>> Sternwartestrasse 15 >>>> A-6020 Innsbruck >>>> AUSTRIA >>>> >>>> Phone: +43-(0)512-507-5948 >>>> Fax: +43-(0)512-507-2715 >>>> e-mail: Walter.Oberhuber@uibk.ac.at >>>> http://botany.uibk.ac.at >>> >>> Dr. Tom Melvin >>> Climatic Research Unit >>> University of East Anglia >>> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. >>> Phone: +44-1603-593161 >>> Fax: +44-1603-507784 >> >> >> >> -- >> Address: >> A. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Oberhuber >> University of Innsbruck >> Institute of Botany >> Sternwartestrasse 15 >> A-6020 Innsbruck >> AUSTRIA >> >> Phone: +43-(0)512-507-5948 >> Fax: +43-(0)512-507-2715 >> e-mail: Walter.Oberhuber@uibk.ac.at >> http://botany.uibk.ac.at >> > > Dr. Tom Melvin > Climatic Research Unit > University of East Anglia > Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. > > Phone: +44-1603-593161 > Fax: +44-1603-507784 > -- Address: A. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Walter Oberhuber University of Innsbruck Institute of Botany Sternwartestrasse 15 A-6020 Innsbruck AUSTRIA Phone: +43-(0)512-507-5948 Fax: +43-(0)512-507-2715 e-mail: Walter.Oberhuber@uibk.ac.at http://botany.uibk.ac.at Z931N01m1932 1615 1304 2291 1535 1449 748 1046 914 Z931N01m1940 1197 1319 1344 1430 1319 1367 1822 2370 2038 2320 Z931N01m1950 838 654 1088 812 1248 1164 1135 821 1128 1205 Z931N01m1960 1242 1170 1266 1139 1293 1265 1690 1709 1670 2125 Z931N01m1970 1845 1744 1618 1456 2016 1314 1848 2190 1866 1773 Z931N01m1980 2058 2152 2997 3409 2290 2663 2015 2186 2194 2416 Z931N01m1990 2290 2450 2036 1758 2171 2216 2006 2098 2698 2270 Z931N01m2000 2249 2554 1831 1744 1790 1826 2194 1494 -9999 Z931N02m1909 1383 Z931N02m1910 858 842 1928 1451 1500 1879 1736 1577 1185 1132 Z931N02m1920 737 1226 1375 1354 2164 2018 1747 1491 1495 1717 Z931N02m1930 1439 1568 1612 1402 1706 1300 2016 1805 1604 2538 Z931N02m1940 2044 1022 1486 1748 2022 2050 2908 3323 2568 2528 Z931N02m1950 3104 3572 2466 2447 1842 1174 1062 1020 1426 1002 Z931N02m1960 860 1401 1390 1262 1734 1634 1556 1114 1182 1967 Z931N02m1970 1625 1498 1120 1120 1454 1178 838 1294 1004 876 Z931N02m1980 961 748 954 1186 644 1106 632 701 645 758 Z931N02m1990 1130 1684 1397 992 970 778 545 578 749 734 Z931N02m2000 709 834 494 496 413 457 420 462 -9999 Z931N03m1911 766 781 722 1332 1211 1347 1008 1318 1336 Z931N03m1920 1134 1618 1597 1480 2021 2223 1668 1948 500 1362 Z931N03m1930 1740 1694 1776 1610 1992 1425 2118 2099 2008 2064 Z931N03m1940 1771 1682 1558 1831 1991 2167 2411 3122 2426 2472 Z931N03m1950 3103 2958 1988 2270 2020 1638 1490 1300 1486 1228 Z931N03m1960 1032 1371 1411 1345 1164 1200 1128 1148 1402 1793 Z931N03m1970 1706 1442 1204 1044 1194 951 816 988 796 752 Z931N03m1980 848 718 918 1110 778 753 856 1048 1028 1142 Z931N03m1990 879 1182 996 899 1014 974 713 820 851 900 Z931N03m2000 824 1004 794 802 646 616 701 714 -9999 Z931N04m1926 800 789 775 847 Z931N04m1930 1232 987 932 750 600 811 1426 1845 1809 2017 Z931N04m1940 1899 1425 1586 1524 1304 1473 1744 1864 1360 1697 Z931N04m1950 2270 3298 2382 2454 1752 1376 1458 1488 2482 1641 Z931N04m1960 1585 1806 1888 2056 2436 2719 2736 2570 2432 3002 Z931N04m1970 2416 1968 1930 1514 1520 1262 1397 1734 1386 1387 Z931N04m1980 1505 1008 1634 2012 1301 1830 1392 1527 1656 1586 Z931N04m1990 1446 1525 1454 1264 1813 1594 1106 1230 1533 1250 Z931N04m2000 1186 1556 1352 928 847 941 932 914 -9999 Z931N05m1944 2158 2313 2189 1936 1750 1734 Z931N05m1950 1783 1981 2315 2124 1554 1074 884 986 1308 1394 Z931N05m1960 1480 1484 1885 1818 1783 2134 1763 1690 1784 2273 Z931N05m1970 2088 2162 2043 1847 1852 1777 2122 2665 2284 2296 Z931N05m1980 2692 2174 2308 2761 2898 2546 2316 1974 2296 2322 Z931N05m1990 2342 2498 2896 2829 2942 2662 2040 2082 2132 1966 Z931N05m2000 2299 2750 2030 2602 2240 2124 2097 1502 -9999 Z931N06m1911 1034 1327 776 1000 874 730 991 691 594 Z931N06m1920 506 970 984 863 1254 1130 925 1040 887 1238 Z931N06m1930 1516 1501 1499 1050 1166 1068 1506 1477 1266 1604 Z931N06m1940 1215 736 1110 1255 1509 1744 2035 2567 1534 1812 Z931N06m1950 1610 2106 1808 1757 1627 1482 922 936 1198 1112 Z931N06m1960 1108 1277 1436 1286 1224 1578 1472 1410 1641 1942 Z931N06m1970 1866 1456 1244 1028 1216 1041 986 1404 1026 957 Z931N06m1980 980 836 1010 1086 730 1194 982 838 756 646 Z931N06m1990 661 848 824 668 797 680 622 658 886 670 Z931N06m2000 630 798 611 640 673 532 662 566 -9999 Z931N07m1857 1374 1279 1235 Z931N07m1860 1266 1165 1645 1823 2058 2346 2323 2498 2024 2298 Z931N07m1870 2290 2379 1656 2650 2646 2520 2142 2700 2271 3644 Z931N07m1880 3118 2943 2215 1557 1898 2138 1974 3070 2822 2386 Z931N07m1890 2466 2050 2364 2490 2145 2274 1948 2734 3278 2842 Z931N07m1900 2304 2992 2130 2683 3367 2570 2514 2746 2744 2351 Z931N07m1910 2598 2287 2156 1890 2318 2087 2302 2492 1948 1878 Z931N07m1920 1728 2469 2099 2270 1938 2156 1591 1726 1510 1992 Z931N07m1930 1627 1606 1590 1144 1132 1088 1003 832 673 724 Z931N07m1940 642 504 508 523 473 400 523 620 620 808 Z931N07m1950 878 1045 912 1204 764 726 582 501 512 448 Z931N07m1960 404 494 569 451 410 529 609 584 726 1058 Z931N07m1970 937 1053 812 704 627 616 539 568 544 835 Z931N07m1980 746 894 948 1074 869 990 1086 1154 1556 1422 Z931N07m1990 1222 1314 1289 1069 1250 1190 962 1001 1088 1030 Z931N07m2000 1000 987 718 755 546 676 817 682 -9999 Z931N09m1879 1876 Z931N09m1880 1781 1209 175 260 418 345 286 511 521 666 Z931N09m1890 756 597 346 722 1011 1111 1048 1175 1297 1457 Z931N09m1900 1150 1610 726 1025 1897 1942 1760 1391 1548 1648 Z931N09m1910 2634 1936 1722 830 2193 2548 1966 1882 1628 1790 Z931N09m1920 1928 2608 2376 2064 2440 2191 1774 2524 2099 2087 Z931N09m1930 2482 2434 2659 1837 1832 1368 1940 1705 1436 1340 Z931N09m1940 1052 812 960 1052 1159 1091 1512 1917 1586 2076 Z931N09m1950 2191 1971 1614 1588 1422 1200 976 954 1190 994 Z931N09m1960 1003 955 1112 1070 940 1022 1081 1393 1346 1909 Z931N09m1970 1754 1557 1258 1150 1200 1044 1114 1328 1214 1526 Z931N09m1980 1436 1072 1329 1255 972 1116 1120 1201 1058 953 Z931N09m1990 864 904 1064 1046 906 860 764 712 960 932 Z931N09m2000 1016 913 808 759 718 708 985 852 -9999 Z931N10m1870 1468 1290 1419 2004 1288 1015 1168 1306 797 2632 Z931N10m1880 1750 1426 852 612 667 837 920 2171 2437 2652 Z931N10m1890 2274 2114 2196 3022 2932 3670 2786 3032 3654 2818 Z931N10m1900 3296 4130 2828 3101 3743 3310 3286 3258 3014 3347 Z931N10m1910 3825 3118 2386 1726 2460 2016 2028 2600 2244 2449 Z931N10m1920 1735 2794 2734 2628 2235 2386 2630 2832 2556 2874 Z931N10m1930 2438 2528 2878 2281 2054 2048 2704 1755 1440 1526 Z931N10m1940 1056 915 1186 1503 1192 1184 1500 1620 1230 1521 Z931N10m1950 1900 2474 2068 2090 1863 1600 1297 1216 1861 1479 Z931N10m1960 1339 1371 1390 1178 988 996 934 1050 1385 1720 Z931N10m1970 1767 1484 1329 1256 1710 1326 1437 1737 1430 1758 Z931N10m1980 2050 1902 2620 2406 2009 2467 2312 2576 2445 2283 Z931N10m1990 1860 2180 2162 2028 2054 1676 1468 1797 1868 1564 Z931N10m2000 1350 1621 1382 1389 1295 1364 1594 1496 -9999 Z931N11m1938 806 779 Z931N11m1940 470 719 894 829 1412 2104 2061 3178 2419 1366 Z931N11m1950 1989 3468 2257 2042 991 667 928 924 1126 888 Z931N11m1960 942 1195 1510 2012 1903 1584 1680 1814 2340 2960 Z931N11m1970 2036 2091 2019 1740 2201 1376 1226 1759 1499 1724 Z931N11m1980 2378 1716 2110 3113 2191 2122 1787 2344 2112 2200 Z931N11m1990 1500 2626 2068 1608 1500 1297 871 962 1433 850 Z931N11m2000 884 1151 773 777 1206 981 970 905 -9999 Z931N12m1912 932 308 612 319 215 1177 794 927 Z931N12m1920 1375 1243 499 489 1070 487 202 432 481 1058 Z931N12m1930 1404 1402 1358 1230 1347 1018 1114 834 777 970 Z931N12m1940 847 616 801 830 1675 1846 2215 2684 1734 1829 Z931N12m1950 2334 2730 2158 2046 1450 1150 1102 797 1078 800 Z931N12m1960 834 1027 1042 1116 974 1296 1314 1181 1576 2341 Z931N12m1970 1879 1147 1206 982 1251 940 1138 1522 1360 1646 Z931N12m1980 1498 1166 1468 1464 1252 1798 1561 1748 2220 2076 Z931N12m1990 2090 1992 1578 1891 2172 1668 1632 1552 1344 1278 Z931N12m2000 1258 1468 1372 1297 1394 1077 1964 1222 -9999 Z931N13m1877 542 960 1625 Z931N13m1880 1284 546 190 209 574 682 709 1022 826 1285 Z931N13m1890 1156 1042 1082 873 1358 1637 1871 1972 1597 1374 Z931N13m1900 1292 1639 1602 2021 2254 1982 1827 1890 1900 2154 Z931N13m1910 2409 2140 1900 1338 2146 2055 1898 1660 1486 1686 Z931N13m1920 1640 1720 1550 1678 1651 1682 1468 1470 1178 1599 Z931N13m1930 1870 1788 1823 1168 1474 1387 1729 1486 1167 1506 Z931N13m1940 1258 916 892 840 1192 1046 957 1358 1170 1350 Z931N13m1950 1478 1860 1504 1880 1485 1263 828 638 690 611 Z931N13m1960 634 560 651 687 604 653 735 662 924 1025 Z931N13m1970 1020 812 836 698 677 615 809 1072 885 1036 Z931N13m1980 1000 1015 1072 1262 1206 1482 968 1018 1058 1031 Z931N13m1990 1009 1310 1232 1170 1290 3180 1290 882 1052 936 Z931N13m2000 965 1078 1056 998 1181 1137 1134 1050 -9999 Z931N14m1904 3184 2708 2320 2534 2670 2346 Z931N14m1910 2458 2198 1864 1518 1732 1576 1676 1890 1523 1239 Z931N14m1920 916 1126 1363 1475 1671 1918 1740 1658 1978 2782 Z931N14m1930 2646 2434 2410 1504 1737 1712 1665 1205 1345 1273 Z931N14m1940 1124 1121 1274 1446 1347 1666 2643 2910 2480 2654 Z931N14m1950 2530 1448 1126 1384 1429 1187 1327 896 1354 1117 Z931N14m1960 1167 1230 1086 1014 1230 1156 1224 1233 1294 1654 Z931N14m1970 1530 1273 1269 1018 1083 764 998 1098 882 930 Z931N14m1980 958 724 1052 1182 1194 1340 1696 1782 1962 1794 Z931N14m1990 1686 2002 1780 1660 1798 1525 1336 1328 1568 1226 Z931N14m2000 1183 1454 1184 1168 1425 1444 1536 1083 -9999 Z931N15m1840 1625 735 1376 779 961 1094 1616 1500 805 822 Z931N15m1850 870 812 996 1153 1171 962 948 657 970 1226 Z931N15m1860 1138 847 1143 1154 1214 1324 1762 1628 1200 1642 Z931N15m1870 1691 1529 1619 1882 2145 2064 1974 1768 1042 1546 Z931N15m1880 1517 1789 1491 1570 1452 1458 1385 1588 1511 1566 Z931N15m1890 1654 1700 1652 1765 1853 1857 1695 1963 1702 1456 Z931N15m1900 1630 1972 1546 1646 1541 1493 1558 1750 1933 2074 Z931N15m1910 1720 1700 1598 1358 1557 1594 1704 1336 1246 1242 Z931N15m1920 1038 1606 1361 1504 1320 1106 1096 1304 1964 1736 Z931N15m1930 1486 1458 1306 898 1174 1113 1104 891 938 1162 Z931N15m1940 1040 868 905 1082 978 757 934 1028 814 1029 Z931N15m1950 1199 1492 1240 1136 1173 782 924 772 1054 997 Z931N15m1960 876 988 1060 1026 1106 828 965 1030 931 1111 Z931N15m1970 959 945 718 708 589 523 638 732 568 568 Z931N15m1980 513 623 612 802 744 874 942 882 790 720 Z931N15m1990 716 796 850 924 959 879 906 635 856 932 Z931N15m2000 1070 1206 1158 1238 1033 1112 1290 1084 -9999 Z931N18m1903 2919 2630 2484 2404 2127 2267 2165 Z931N18m1910 2273 2088 2047 1308 1357 1844 1773 1823 1583 1971 Z931N18m1920 1623 2384 2034 2071 2135 1920 1886 1935 1622 2030 Z931N18m1930 1965 1488 1790 1658 1344 1206 1405 1592 1287 1215 Z931N18m1940 861 846 815 794 934 1071 1415 2621 1230 1162 Z931N18m1950 1342 1454 1383 1522 1486 1133 991 1021 1584 1402 Z931N18m1960 1166 1265 1382 1362 1359 1422 1540 1472 1654 1756 Z931N18m1970 1904 2132 2201 1928 2340 2016 1819 2164 1870 2063 Z931N18m1980 2093 1812 2284 1988 1756 2427 2164 2144 2688 3106 Z931N18m1990 2990 3417 3228 2584 2948 2132 1768 1876 2371 2068 Z931N18m2000 1820 2033 1864 1762 1482 1586 2183 1884 -9999 Z931N20m1917 575 324 95 Z931N20m1920 149 122 219 282 458 478 193 283 372 601 Z931N20m1930 441 256 321 410 590 207 280 238 282 318 Z931N20m1940 367 405 485 464 759 1089 794 964 1205 1778 Z931N20m1950 1455 828 719 1016 1127 1023 926 1032 1444 1330 Z931N20m1960 1206 1268 1237 960 1023 1398 1429 1724 1570 1930 Z931N20m1970 1874 1625 1732 1442 2278 1856 2264 2468 1500 1813 Z931N20m1980 1748 1134 1986 2592 2176 2100 2156 2291 2022 1850 Z931N20m1990 1841 2673 2822 3134 3295 2753 2198 2438 2766 2302 Z931N20m2000 2548 3316 2662 2752 2658 2416 2760 2678 -9999 Z931NZi11842 1548 1186 1740 2080 2196 1559 1442 924 Z931NZi11850 896 755 970 792 761 896 1122 1296 1221 988 Z931NZi11860 1202 937 1467 1973 1748 1698 1988 2041 1962 2406 Z931NZi11870 2128 2198 2011 2180 2205 2292 2204 2080 1632 2379 Z931NZi11880 2106 1936 1470 1822 1964 1746 1474 1818 2287 2238 Z931NZi11890 1692 1782 2012 1882 1828 1880 1614 1986 2062 1584 Z931NZi11900 1573 1877 1628 1550 2522 2214 1824 2381 2090 2066 Z931NZi11910 2274 2276 1590 1188 1657 1455 1284 1502 1187 1340 Z931NZi11920 1098 1818 1624 1258 1786 2279 1653 2210 2116 2127 Z931NZi11930 2210 2454 1864 1390 1570 1701 2137 2183 2068 2060 Z931NZi11940 2110 1706 1524 1825 1562 1470 2335 3253 2080 2582 Z931NZi11950 3443 3264 3293 3127 2778 2178 2180 1905 2742 2118 Z931NZi11960 1992 2148 2637 2621 2134 2149 2117 1891 1915 2291 Z931NZi11970 2322 1878 1407 1542 1502 1290 1550 1943 1740 1812 Z931NZi11980 2138 1546 2380 2328 1814 2279 2026 2028 1650 1437 Z931NZi11990 1531 1746 1631 1658 2336 1840 1540 1758 1605 1490 Z931NZi12000 1593 1656 1375 1254 1023 1261 1728 1621 -9999 Z931S42m1797 1867 2060 1753 Z931S42m1800 1439 968 1700 1532 1144 1035 1256 1752 1785 1652 Z931S42m1810 1311 1795 1678 1349 1772 1014 992 1426 1308 1105 Z931S42m1820 974 1091 1771 2215 1633 1438 609 1217 1203 2018 Z931S42m1830 2245 2149 1438 1372 1577 1558 847 1318 1356 1078 Z931S42m1840 1868 1576 1937 1382 1951 1644 2090 2138 1771 1472 Z931S42m1850 1682 1383 1476 1160 1144 1184 1447 1484 1084 1334 Z931S42m1860 1550 1682 1532 1796 1788 1228 1330 1377 1010 1088 Z931S42m1870 1040 1078 941 1260 1338 1916 1540 1340 1192 1122 Z931S42m1880 1102 1346 1144 1282 1186 880 892 790 1000 1388 Z931S42m1890 1069 1026 1083 1370 1376 1625 972 1434 1673 1290 Z931S42m1900 1054 1141 1058 1520 1470 1232 1027 1118 1176 1207 Z931S42m1910 998 1026 1018 594 1096 968 1134 1156 1266 1145 Z931S42m1920 901 1596 904 1652 1438 1390 1293 1528 1248 1440 Z931S42m1930 1354 1560 1569 1060 1058 1222 1856 1546 1320 1442 Z931S42m1940 1716 1018 1102 1616 1350 1120 1626 1634 800 1006 Z931S42m1950 882 1172 1450 1470 1392 1046 906 1056 1480 1308 Z931S42m1960 952 1309 1046 944 1127 871 928 1104 1114 1540 Z931S42m1970 1240 1060 876 812 902 637 558 536 702 610 Z931S42m1980 838 840 970 954 510 958 617 750 861 576 Z931S42m1990 695 756 593 566 566 544 362 368 666 568 Z931S42m2000 638 858 817 756 922 859 784 872 -9999 Z931S44m1843 323 391 449 384 476 543 602 Z931S44m1850 555 696 592 346 442 437 580 715 746 748 Z931S44m1860 901 682 961 1320 962 647 875 849 916 1491 Z931S44m1870 1333 1234 1023 1682 1592 1720 1370 1626 1251 1319 Z931S44m1880 1591 1602 1052 1048 900 1084 1183 1018 1219 1494 Z931S44m1890 1233 977 1156 1916 1636 1480 1262 1262 1537 1589 Z931S44m1900 1730 1688 1574 1862 2903 1699 1365 1160 1285 1133 Z931S44m1910 1036 1197 1186 783 828 860 786 898 1005 932 Z931S44m1920 1018 1840 1475 1678 1804 1344 1034 1184 1016 1116 Z931S44m1930 958 1107 1176 1002 1082 1078 1496 1240 1184 1035 Z931S44m1940 866 720 771 880 843 802 1217 1086 860 882 Z931S44m1950 1015 1094 913 1114 921 876 746 690 832 883 Z931S44m1960 698 742 754 762 831 770 835 805 941 1282 Z931S44m1970 1260 1216 893 814 714 610 677 690 675 862 Z931S44m1980 772 720 826 997 794 926 778 804 830 609 Z931S44m1990 536 954 1184 1062 1348 1209 894 904 876 975 Z931S44m2000 830 966 1030 898 1030 786 979 879 -9999 Z931S45m1901 1018 1093 1595 1929 1284 1229 1928 2294 2233 Z931S45m1910 2330 1744 1574 790 1242 1406 1032 1204 1330 932 Z931S45m1920 1022 1574 1710 1770 1812 1392 952 1436 1094 1528 Z931S45m1930 1302 1202 1292 970 1074 930 1300 1032 997 1186 Z931S45m1940 1104 684 1021 1024 867 846 1325 1270 898 1160 Z931S45m1950 1492 1716 1752 1572 1480 1394 1208 1268 1627 1390 Z931S45m1960 1537 1348 1651 1221 1398 1286 1449 1304 1487 1942 Z931S45m1970 1488 1193 1156 1049 1081 746 563 752 726 811 Z931S45m1980 854 733 886 1053 608 1041 806 938 1140 868 Z931S45m1990 712 810 713 789 964 944 542 627 866 722 Z931S45m2000 634 1007 904 955 880 895 1082 1336 -9999 Z931S46m1696 827 742 1009 1123 Z931S46m1700 1317 554 948 1043 1096 762 949 856 895 776 Z931S46m1710 1262 1122 1159 1031 856 1035 1029 742 950 1283 Z931S46m1720 1211 967 1297 1036 1005 701 966 847 1051 719 Z931S46m1730 599 605 819 936 1069 542 460 635 699 801 Z931S46m1740 1027 764 800 667 794 1203 941 717 1149 1271 Z931S46m1750 1168 1470 1370 1401 1156 1294 1113 1252 1026 1037 Z931S46m1760 923 702 811 892 882 625 927 703 456 573 Z931S46m1770 618 677 584 585 674 791 831 864 1077 559 Z931S46m1780 792 1042 668 786 1040 1024 984 907 1073 1065 Z931S46m1790 972 1050 707 753 734 704 717 529 821 982 Z931S46m1800 815 530 556 445 475 671 699 714 657 509 Z931S46m1810 603 660 614 383 406 328 156 134 91 122 Z931S46m1820 95 52 306 301 223 196 183 300 264 292 Z931S46m1830 252 279 401 362 380 618 413 483 428 320 Z931S46m1840 535 509 528 450 584 530 680 703 669 811 Z931S46m1850 724 677 648 338 342 398 577 693 515 669 Z931S46m1860 874 1218 952 1064 1068 704 785 706 758 718 Z931S46m1870 716 630 502 722 711 782 490 587 443 363 Z931S46m1880 536 546 408 562 600 496 389 322 369 515 Z931S46m1890 550 456 428 482 381 577 412 483 544 555 Z931S46m1900 491 540 453 555 747 573 486 420 486 444 Z931S46m1910 513 408 406 252 357 326 310 328 278 238 Z931S46m1920 315 555 442 811 764 596 565 677 442 658 Z931S46m1930 685 751 690 396 590 681 697 547 555 477 Z931S46m1940 382 310 240 364 487 531 603 579 376 497 Z931S46m1950 440 588 563 580 714 684 457 462 658 570 Z931S46m1960 543 543 630 512 510 596 511 526 505 660 Z931S46m1970 612 435 520 529 646 530 529 489 518 560 Z931S46m1980 604 467 719 792 584 686 572 730 668 435 Z931S46m1990 510 613 725 604 766 751 461 580 658 631 Z931S46m2000 538 579 682 595 372 327 420 461 -9999 Z931S47m1799 1226 Z931S47m1800 1371 941 1279 1212 1004 828 841 1039 1112 1051 Z931S47m1810 1105 1652 1292 904 1488 609 610 658 526 644 Z931S47m1820 731 678 1006 1334 1180 1510 1366 1369 1560 2384 Z931S47m1830 2556 1925 1652 1322 1460 1463 1117 1578 1539 1246 Z931S47m1840 1664 1573 1534 1257 1913 1862 1559 1449 1306 1164 Z931S47m1850 1126 1874 1968 1899 1690 1534 1598 1492 1236 1442 Z931S47m1860 1876 1812 1775 1849 1793 1526 1452 1456 1455 1646 Z931S47m1870 1774 1412 1142 1374 1730 1583 1330 1454 1135 1236 Z931S47m1880 1650 2196 1638 2573 1876 1702 1772 1440 1384 1952 Z931S47m1890 1465 1539 1696 1652 1775 1424 1286 1290 1591 1260 Z931S47m1900 1522 1462 1280 1303 1546 1306 1038 1249 1314 1231 Z931S47m1910 1019 1032 1228 530 777 865 643 674 567 554 Z931S47m1920 490 1032 826 1082 1186 882 706 908 851 1020 Z931S47m1930 942 1072 993 843 700 682 844 689 618 538 Z931S47m1940 548 402 366 414 480 527 596 664 464 536 Z931S47m1950 568 710 724 734 743 784 621 784 728 690 Z931S47m1960 610 545 631 722 630 464 588 531 682 762 Z931S47m1970 660 626 544 499 440 303 382 478 362 410 Z931S47m1980 377 433 678 898 572 696 684 795 820 418 Z931S47m1990 503 822 699 684 898 857 604 550 734 686 Z931S47m2000 639 735 846 870 782 709 812 744 -9999 Z931S48m1736 814 986 1273 1054 Z931S48m1740 1409 1432 1394 1346 1238 1246 1362 1085 1064 1186 Z931S48m1750 547 511 561 652 646 764 756 754 616 672 Z931S48m1760 655 800 764 867 928 718 772 846 774 884 Z931S48m1770 772 986 828 968 1142 1245 1229 1096 1408 882 Z931S48m1780 1118 1138 862 1266 1316 1200 1065 1276 1061 1003 Z931S48m1790 918 934 805 738 976 644 530 572 838 707 Z931S48m1800 788 716 980 916 736 694 598 658 518 385 Z931S48m1810 478 470 474 323 441 298 317 398 288 364 Z931S48m1820 274 238 415 512 482 396 430 595 618 607 Z931S48m1830 470 560 495 534 418 420 328 365 320 278 Z931S48m1840 356 356 448 292 478 454 504 493 392 441 Z931S48m1850 352 306 362 294 246 272 322 332 260 356 Z931S48m1860 495 483 398 527 518 547 652 649 615 558 Z931S48m1870 543 564 432 424 463 594 358 284 274 354 Z931S48m1880 318 420 248 399 306 268 234 234 214 324 Z931S48m1890 202 285 278 319 257 338 307 344 368 379 Z931S48m1900 531 516 482 561 617 443 312 346 307 230 Z931S48m1910 284 296 404 226 320 327 216 250 188 222 Z931S48m1920 195 346 292 499 596 507 435 508 470 652 Z931S48m1930 554 856 754 560 588 688 804 674 529 575 Z931S48m1940 660 461 537 626 664 542 712 603 382 320 Z931S48m1950 346 396 477 358 359 290 227 296 361 338 Z931S48m1960 284 290 262 300 252 274 230 184 185 278 Z931S48m1970 346 274 261 240 308 206 201 240 222 218 Z931S48m1980 246 237 306 340 244 329 346 372 442 338 Z931S48m1990 296 482 509 364 292 321 232 302 379 360 Z931S48m2000 434 385 376 308 214 182 226 274 -9999 Z931S49m1751 1444 1288 1256 1161 1307 1728 1560 1578 1900 Z931S49m1760 1874 1386 1211 1074 672 735 783 834 1071 1564 Z931S49m1770 832 750 539 687 841 995 981 749 1181 659 Z931S49m1780 1024 814 610 632 823 701 659 673 633 472 Z931S49m1790 528 607 460 340 460 397 363 475 598 456 Z931S49m1800 619 455 468 500 358 216 360 352 334 276 Z931S49m1810 366 547 512 382 363 204 129 386 287 163 Z931S49m1820 111 188 526 522 575 462 572 627 675 1309 Z931S49m1830 2019 1994 1351 954 754 779 295 325 494 311 Z931S49m1840 535 642 1017 768 1233 1274 840 693 374 416 Z931S49m1850 510 353 511 252 270 298 305 433 315 200 Z931S49m1860 308 327 305 310 256 234 395 380 345 621 Z931S49m1870 525 428 374 724 458 472 366 247 304 180 Z931S49m1880 323 403 227 256 201 247 258 203 307 323 Z931S49m1890 223 355 419 516 245 310 165 293 140 214 Z931S49m1900 279 262 232 258 437 295 212 415 378 278 Z931S49m1910 399 610 614 372 337 460 285 406 238 293 Z931S49m1920 269 424 315 512 500 275 281 439 376 418 Z931S49m1930 343 451 518 166 244 229 295 313 372 351 Z931S49m1940 296 320 182 344 415 407 540 487 344 559 Z931S49m1950 578 740 788 517 650 466 616 818 990 635 Z931S49m1960 977 1166 1844 1647 2080 1112 1304 806 866 1024 Z931S49m1970 1219 982 688 504 372 189 319 265 251 235 Z931S49m1980 258 244 375 484 326 311 433 509 552 354 Z931S49m1990 368 610 389 370 346 400 311 285 395 307 Z931S49m2000 405 619 640 790 831 640 673 648 -9999 Z931S50m1722 913 946 995 1105 1180 1421 1302 1317 Z931S50m1730 1215 1178 758 853 946 934 404 433 587 507 Z931S50m1740 602 538 905 755 785 826 1225 947 1317 1228 Z931S50m1750 1276 1350 1348 1225 1402 1311 1302 1384 1266 1153 Z931S50m1760 1230 1294 1585 1326 1238 745 797 715 723 739 Z931S50m1770 692 764 816 764 756 825 914 936 1078 650 Z931S50m1780 1068 1148 908 1005 1065 939 798 690 867 939 Z931S50m1790 774 864 592 578 893 596 409 250 567 402 Z931S50m1800 698 650 768 746 673 454 566 753 612 408 Z931S50m1810 390 441 480 274 302 253 332 231 204 156 Z931S50m1820 173 196 280 436 481 492 637 620 684 680 Z931S50m1830 504 506 529 673 544 461 266 315 324 256 Z931S50m1840 566 554 548 173 562 604 598 708 616 548 Z931S50m1850 553 523 520 391 414 300 375 369 459 486 Z931S50m1860 478 486 669 532 595 712 656 563 558 589 Z931S50m1870 591 489 251 484 420 426 337 430 504 360 Z931S50m1880 443 725 220 625 452 465 393 329 392 459 Z931S50m1890 360 473 544 617 516 528 438 496 530 478 Z931S50m1900 580 593 499 571 606 582 453 608 594 614 Z931S50m1910 530 534 732 386 663 670 465 352 403 385 Z931S50m1920 345 743 438 713 579 679 553 921 747 1029 Z931S50m1930 702 990 1071 872 841 757 979 913 755 744 Z931S50m1940 642 516 470 572 510 472 595 610 484 633 Z931S50m1950 1342 2660 2999 2506 2530 1761 1670 1397 2189 1516 Z931S50m1960 1345 1127 1052 980 880 893 860 776 860 1015 Z931S50m1970 1153 791 669 629 658 530 454 646 628 724 Z931S50m1980 806 612 735 854 617 953 610 583 608 345 Z931S50m1990 400 715 693 540 620 509 791 504 475 475 Z931S50m2000 417 705 367 419 520 390 514 460 -9999 Z931S51m1692 861 1026 1201 1048 672 722 676 867 Z931S51m1700 1011 1155 1330 978 1234 1337 1284 1406 1306 1482 Z931S51m1710 1492 1430 1400 1257 822 757 708 705 924 1150 Z931S51m1720 1231 1090 1043 958 876 712 598 635 648 756 Z931S51m1730 732 705 877 1035 722 468 490 706 892 1047 Z931S51m1740 785 808 768 814 938 1188 1072 1156 1154 1054 Z931S51m1750 1168 1217 1371 1138 1186 1126 1111 1210 1182 1204 Z931S51m1760 1002 1028 1090 1098 1010 892 897 802 861 819 Z931S51m1770 888 793 837 846 1000 914 864 1010 936 674 Z931S51m1780 931 822 873 1038 1138 927 1100 1233 1080 1284 Z931S51m1790 1001 1032 780 695 740 585 624 582 832 702 Z931S51m1800 750 532 719 794 774 656 642 879 714 408 Z931S51m1810 402 571 617 426 506 340 342 327 312 192 Z931S51m1820 154 115 288 290 292 254 285 348 310 328 Z931S51m1830 309 313 326 478 395 418 382 390 388 345 Z931S51m1840 422 454 634 434 678 670 608 688 662 778 Z931S51m1850 609 519 476 474 334 392 441 474 487 504 Z931S51m1860 584 658 599 614 624 463 556 514 533 594 Z931S51m1870 688 558 436 583 724 653 499 598 414 448 Z931S51m1880 368 482 341 466 340 406 370 346 356 410 Z931S51m1890 288 347 332 362 320 374 332 348 338 292 Z931S51m1900 367 342 342 411 488 473 419 440 426 389 Z931S51m1910 317 344 462 319 300 301 236 272 244 250 Z931S51m1920 194 305 320 314 366 302 254 369 394 388 Z931S51m1930 388 488 444 392 423 391 384 384 378 388 Z931S51m1940 323 274 310 338 302 292 376 442 303 319 Z931S51m1950 298 450 683 472 574 537 606 790 1032 788 Z931S51m1960 665 756 686 680 622 606 600 508 740 848 Z931S51m1970 782 604 434 530 454 274 310 315 295 396 Z931S51m1980 316 386 472 502 446 434 432 419 452 330 Z931S51m1990 248 438 392 430 402 470 369 316 385 421 Z931S51m2000 324 428 462 550 452 408 392 485 -9999 Z931S52m1805 748 764 1135 820 627 Z931S52m1810 644 690 780 647 384 282 322 419 332 221 Z931S52m1820 176 218 580 893 803 797 704 838 841 1111 Z931S52m1830 1089 949 702 884 844 747 512 588 693 644 Z931S52m1840 973 1032 1368 890 1393 1178 1203 1163 911 763 Z931S52m1850 881 583 558 612 476 494 686 608 718 665 Z931S52m1860 1070 913 950 805 1008 797 712 657 599 992 Z931S52m1870 775 823 577 686 897 688 614 685 623 528 Z931S52m1880 522 780 331 618 647 441 592 400 503 550 Z931S52m1890 348 335 358 558 389 706 438 509 512 422 Z931S52m1900 583 610 670 606 820 602 472 688 732 583 Z931S52m1910 367 443 534 246 319 450 250 313 216 339 Z931S52m1920 337 580 392 633 755 662 290 767 708 1268 Z931S52m1930 1094 1030 1099 690 729 828 1015 978 712 670 Z931S52m1940 545 423 428 510 554 492 563 612 367 472 Z931S52m1950 644 728 937 743 830 851 614 710 893 930 Z931S52m1960 719 713 777 454 578 421 472 426 527 560 Z931S52m1970 496 502 449 379 448 142 185 221 188 268 Z931S52m1980 215 232 275 384 333 311 304 318 270 114 Z931S52m1990 191 426 372 297 379 326 260 188 258 306 Z931S52m2000 392 398 368 337 327 404 304 322 -9999 Z931S53m1775 602 718 688 684 846 Z931S53m1780 344 759 986 701 906 1028 934 824 918 863 Z931S53m1790 780 648 689 640 790 735 571 612 880 878 Z931S53m1800 941 734 868 1058 1032 926 1172 1278 1068 798 Z931S53m1810 629 766 1144 926 820 686 640 713 646 663 Z931S53m1820 678 597 800 1334 1186 1276 1256 1551 1290 1818 Z931S53m1830 1646 1317 1216 1361 1559 1486 1152 1194 1147 1230 Z931S53m1840 1514 1344 1778 958 1581 1922 2090 1624 1681 1597 Z931S53m1850 1390 1140 1145 885 530 662 826 978 890 1230 Z931S53m1860 1657 1730 1692 1832 2154 1818 1443 1667 1494 1899 Z931S53m1870 2432 1634 1154 1531 1590 1463 1358 1340 1334 1067 Z931S53m1880 1008 1845 787 1194 1408 1280 1110 877 950 1246 Z931S53m1890 966 892 1070 1278 1239 1182 1002 998 964 794 Z931S53m1900 1068 1234 1112 1282 1530 1186 888 1220 1641 1412 Z931S53m1910 1168 1378 1123 618 1058 899 610 694 574 594 Z931S53m1920 490 1054 751 1309 1453 1140 921 1315 1235 1459 Z931S53m1930 1192 1600 1901 1085 1128 1245 1405 1214 1288 1382 Z931S53m1940 1338 1258 1268 1416 1284 1207 1824 1710 1156 1642 Z931S53m1950 1887 2436 2352 1906 1831 1624 1731 1536 2010 1662 Z931S53m1960 1625 1335 1483 1134 1235 1096 1126 1294 1208 1720 Z931S53m1970 1696 1662 1236 965 1153 843 1050 1108 976 1166 Z931S53m1980 1096 886 1245 1166 954 1050 1079 1156 1073 635 Z931S53m1990 836 1186 1207 906 1086 1050 840 674 919 714 Z931S53m2000 920 1208 872 1040 1050 968 1215 1116 -9999 Z931S55m1682 732 446 621 400 578 640 518 615 Z931S55m1690 886 904 854 767 670 544 378 367 500 554 Z931S55m1700 827 756 488 545 633 519 731 672 606 480 Z931S55m1710 698 798 762 758 248 540 482 396 398 553 Z931S55m1720 624 571 582 326 645 582 674 496 574 518 Z931S55m1730 519 541 423 448 528 370 422 454 604 619 Z931S55m1740 696 442 436 395 448 668 618 572 792 756 Z931S55m1750 374 744 834 838 843 950 841 1004 1062 1136 Z931S55m1760 1310 1187 1260 1248 1078 1103 1068 1080 702 776 Z931S55m1770 754 647 652 734 910 1042 1055 972 1248 446 Z931S55m1780 910 827 770 782 919 973 788 1060 974 923 Z931S55m1790 714 1042 801 829 978 688 587 538 592 543 Z931S55m1800 577 469 500 481 448 396 371 458 503 290 Z931S55m1810 322 428 442 302 410 334 337 312 244 262 Z931S55m1820 224 160 306 415 410 376 326 442 368 340 Z931S55m1830 333 382 373 454 468 382 294 382 321 238 Z931S55m1840 349 332 424 244 551 708 685 594 588 550 Z931S55m1850 540 494 612 502 410 566 556 538 382 472 Z931S55m1860 578 588 579 711 795 824 812 792 588 649 Z931S55m1870 739 726 414 738 804 762 614 654 496 516 Z931S55m1880 359 776 300 635 530 465 498 344 476 511 Z931S55m1890 349 462 550 650 489 702 534 528 604 490 Z931S55m1900 624 620 527 630 779 809 582 694 630 494 Z931S55m1910 457 514 618 370 454 486 308 436 330 350 Z931S55m1920 314 453 352 559 699 582 728 784 770 1228 Z931S55m1930 1018 1088 980 622 518 482 618 642 417 396 Z931S55m1940 457 308 386 494 442 461 550 546 364 373 Z931S55m1950 422 548 532 448 442 416 404 434 525 424 Z931S55m1960 402 310 343 374 313 262 280 223 304 462 Z931S55m1970 423 350 328 312 285 254 140 206 226 278 Z931S55m1980 262 197 272 390 348 515 337 434 513 168 Z931S55m1990 328 486 562 416 424 515 356 389 451 469 Z931S55m2000 373 514 496 440 592 373 412 452 -9999 Z931S58m1771 1503 1641 1628 1929 2223 2007 1657 2020 946 Z931S58m1780 1480 1665 1189 1194 1497 1442 1330 1288 1477 1266 Z931S58m1790 1164 1376 925 872 944 648 570 748 1109 1093 Z931S58m1800 916 987 1018 839 625 509 572 870 809 497 Z931S58m1810 450 770 639 489 612 428 326 462 461 336 Z931S58m1820 161 236 452 501 624 673 660 636 763 845 Z931S58m1830 598 669 652 740 537 674 528 624 557 479 Z931S58m1840 659 644 781 338 932 908 962 978 1024 900 Z931S58m1850 825 714 615 544 506 607 609 735 583 881 Z931S58m1860 953 860 736 1035 1040 682 786 729 653 644 Z931S58m1870 858 802 682 928 1058 1182 1142 990 971 1032 Z931S58m1880 1118 1116 500 851 656 753 520 602 643 700 Z931S58m1890 409 526 528 716 618 837 492 537 570 572 Z931S58m1900 610 651 569 750 1055 731 780 736 815 654 Z931S58m1910 612 684 754 406 484 438 425 600 652 618 Z931S58m1920 578 895 740 939 890 900 775 830 883 1206 Z931S58m1930 1173 1435 1634 1074 1275 1056 1141 938 884 786 Z931S58m1940 684 580 512 681 652 634 775 841 546 662 Z931S58m1950 716 788 869 806 711 654 682 764 973 947 Z931S58m1960 864 808 785 716 690 722 698 606 780 842 Z931S58m1970 880 878 709 906 654 450 498 391 449 499 Z931S58m1980 524 534 798 822 579 707 654 700 660 411 Z931S58m1990 374 644 586 620 680 678 602 480 582 500 Z931S58m2000 702 626 576 712 794 636 644 612 -9999 Z931S59m1796 341 183 399 270 Z931S59m1800 321 330 194 148 193 88 214 202 240 289 Z931S59m1810 419 540 748 667 901 431 496 408 225 296 Z931S59m1820 430 396 398 931 738 1129 775 793 700 1071 Z931S59m1830 1036 1147 863 1079 1119 924 694 1054 811 832 Z931S59m1840 1173 1154 1696 1066 1470 1218 1087 766 773 718 Z931S59m1850 744 931 1078 728 638 497 564 654 474 659 Z931S59m1860 955 1045 1209 818 744 783 739 895 524 916 Z931S59m1870 885 1060 658 684 669 649 539 617 543 498 Z931S59m1880 830 1117 1120 1169 1149 1084 993 635 905 983 Z931S59m1890 749 705 594 757 528 659 548 566 685 547 Z931S59m1900 544 700 564 795 852 615 648 649 545 478 Z931S59m1910 470 425 528 299 436 380 247 290 380 346 Z931S59m1920 312 555 444 559 611 413 621 714 592 639 Z931S59m1930 773 764 750 670 506 388 597 474 418 431 Z931S59m1940 304 193 251 278 302 216 313 320 326 328 Z931S59m1950 397 582 592 477 514 495 483 460 431 303 Z931S59m1960 288 324 431 331 289 283 300 442 438 364 Z931S59m1970 486 376 358 275 296 249 285 353 313 350 Z931S59m1980 407 447 539 924 438 605 475 496 738 472 Z931S59m1990 390 791 790 613 732 682 558 411 697 740 Z931S59m2000 654 603 592 752 996 654 923 848 -9999 Z931S60m1845 944 1090 1188 1272 838 Z931S60m1850 1000 662 787 575 379 329 718 504 583 574 Z931S60m1860 768 545 846 912 964 756 1000 900 821 1128 Z931S60m1870 1173 911 732 790 1130 1143 1058 980 1186 1257 Z931S60m1880 1225 1251 597 1217 523 569 559 448 961 1633 Z931S60m1890 1373 1228 1239 1713 952 1442 931 1378 1472 1525 Z931S60m1900 1649 1715 1827 1958 2479 1692 1276 1599 1473 1274 Z931S60m1910 883 1006 1011 622 534 856 723 782 1008 997 Z931S60m1920 875 1558 1265 1726 1932 1445 1484 2337 1636 2056 Z931S60m1930 1524 1614 1720 873 941 600 702 685 686 677 Z931S60m1940 588 421 391 556 592 532 657 826 646 748 Z931S60m1950 825 933 851 832 753 753 651 648 754 749 Z931S60m1960 904 789 805 656 668 621 725 566 705 720 Z931S60m1970 815 615 614 619 769 493 663 627 732 742 Z931S60m1980 688 706 927 1314 743 1148 904 750 1072 831 Z931S60m1990 676 1144 1011 876 1098 916 529 509 911 913 Z931S60m2000 594 808 715 833 810 584 674 716 -9999 Z931S41m1801 1971 1517 3104 1738 996 866 835 1239 1051 Z931S41m1810 1207 983 1427 1035 688 1337 536 801 787 689 Z931S41m1820 666 518 1413 2352 1948 1904 1343 2356 1788 2104 Z931S41m1830 1950 1772 1405 1257 2042 1985 1330 1677 1260 936 Z931S41m1840 1102 1228 1438 1199 1313 974 802 781 697 681 Z931S41m1850 583 528 546 308 272 266 380 504 468 695 Z931S41m1860 680 856 752 792 792 614 722 710 677 718 Z931S41m1870 676 674 578 728 799 912 728 725 562 478 Z931S41m1880 528 546 548 810 994 900 716 448 568 645 Z931S41m1890 386 362 488 572 578 638 446 335 465 438 Z931S41m1900 474 434 356 481 588 410 338 444 483 430 Z931S41m1910 518 561 574 368 610 648 626 861 938 1022 Z931S41m1920 920 1484 1121 1804 1798 1437 1310 1612 1298 1615 Z931S41m1930 1523 1800 1536 988 1028 787 1114 1017 927 860 Z931S41m1940 997 798 996 1382 1248 972 1373 1320 985 1160 Z931S41m1950 1344 1484 1794 1468 1488 1268 1027 1109 1456 1419 Z931S41m1960 1176 1366 1496 1428 1598 1361 1327 1550 1300 1942 Z931S41m1970 1866 1640 1212 964 954 688 790 828 849 920 Z931S41m1980 1102 802 1060 974 499 762 925 910 1129 854 Z931S41m1990 784 912 841 707 966 822 551 692 954 861 Z931S41m2000 680 982 867 926 994 982 1231 1126 -9999 Z922G01M1854 2150 2681 2892 2434 2241 2919 Z922G01M1860 3035 2712 2488 1342 2433 2758 2562 2463 2308 2494 Z922G01M1870 2130 2056 2468 1718 2030 2042 2236 2062 1538 1672 Z922G01M1880 2072 2319 1446 1464 1628 1460 1288 1308 1538 1672 Z922G01M1890 1420 1408 1584 1680 1889 1700 1237 1296 1287 1072 Z922G01M1900 1024 963 864 1531 1850 1642 1763 1410 1433 975 Z922G01M1910 945 1248 1026 842 1154 1097 1200 1444 1248 996 Z922G01M1920 1045 1330 1292 1301 1462 1150 900 946 1452 2000 Z922G01M1930 1512 1705 2408 1636 1338 1421 1564 1838 1338 1272 Z922G01M1940 1084 834 968 1064 900 682 896 847 597 674 Z922G01M1950 823 920 1111 1014 1012 957 1046 940 1070 794 Z922G01M1960 640 688 1048 776 691 774 1011 953 1031 1236 Z922G01M1970 1138 1161 744 895 745 728 458 776 780 812 Z922G01M1980 944 872 880 1042 598 939 831 854 1032 717 Z922G01M1990 818 942 1032 846 825 792 638 685 653 618 Z922G01M2000 657 870 824 833 864 778 958 -9999 Z922G03M1779 1142 Z922G03M1780 1310 1536 1351 1215 1868 1369 1439 1324 1625 1614 Z922G03M1790 1353 1614 1090 1192 1508 1364 1516 1426 1294 928 Z922G03M1800 1173 1018 1200 1427 1134 990 834 1136 1012 760 Z922G03M1810 614 711 988 738 946 777 704 809 716 570 Z922G03M1820 442 392 486 729 614 691 597 662 630 745 Z922G03M1830 811 566 547 600 554 710 506 488 530 754 Z922G03M1840 884 838 979 714 802 840 1016 1189 908 812 Z922G03M1850 826 730 639 690 586 588 766 904 830 956 Z922G03M1860 1081 1044 1026 795 834 614 744 732 710 714 Z922G03M1870 660 674 650 602 820 682 673 679 552 516 Z922G03M1880 673 694 520 489 542 538 376 366 442 472 Z922G03M1890 428 448 459 462 572 643 672 712 730 630 Z922G03M1900 644 698 716 732 826 867 743 876 853 735 Z922G03M1910 664 884 832 666 752 796 806 730 743 692 Z922G03M1920 644 950 762 814 864 711 623 704 739 780 Z922G03M1930 672 691 723 546 552 624 770 668 582 613 Z922G03M1940 610 564 574 642 548 530 686 818 542 610 Z922G03M1950 630 680 656 724 586 512 503 388 559 472 Z922G03M1960 400 424 495 390 428 458 534 608 560 636 Z922G03M1970 543 537 449 376 308 326 261 284 292 313 Z922G03M1980 274 318 355 388 195 318 320 354 306 288 Z922G03M1990 318 454 350 366 370 338 296 271 264 278 Z922G03M2000 278 335 378 402 325 296 364 -9999 Z922G05M1859 900 Z922G05M1860 998 957 976 1078 1065 929 1171 1278 1242 1038 Z922G05M1870 828 1162 1632 837 943 1315 1339 1408 1519 1435 Z922G05M1880 1473 1304 1335 1369 1393 1091 851 844 1082 1098 Z922G05M1890 839 785 964 1196 985 961 1016 1035 818 515 Z922G05M1900 493 748 710 836 1282 1296 1079 1472 1318 1310 Z922G05M1910 1172 1131 1100 712 842 860 834 1042 934 992 Z922G05M1920 981 1499 1137 1104 1410 1001 730 780 738 754 Z922G05M1930 604 708 1006 744 666 668 789 968 1158 1202 Z922G05M1940 1060 1062 1117 1204 1196 1064 1174 1466 888 1126 Z922G05M1950 1282 1764 1620 1696 1438 1377 1318 1055 1280 1276 Z922G05M1960 1038 1165 1386 1400 1361 1068 1592 1450 1322 1736 Z922G05M1970 1562 1308 1131 1180 1324 1053 792 952 962 1164 Z922G05M1980 1156 1158 1256 1420 1014 1509 1388 1438 1802 1618 Z922G05M1990 1486 1616 1834 1813 2080 1858 1690 1430 1438 1473 Z922G05M2000 1486 1766 2000 2086 1818 1600 2032 -9999 Z922G06M1737 1188 1153 1171 Z922G06M1740 1202 643 412 338 321 371 577 695 975 1002 Z922G06M1750 1294 1167 1018 1227 1158 1357 1127 1445 1208 1491 Z922G06M1760 1587 1516 1724 1957 1515 1186 1359 1447 1090 999 Z922G06M1770 656 745 677 854 1007 1014 1001 1084 1688 1345 Z922G06M1780 1825 1635 1215 1229 1410 1132 1121 1257 1349 1291 Z922G06M1790 1041 929 656 850 1423 1156 1180 1504 1398 846 Z922G06M1800 866 885 1094 1042 868 808 793 1027 779 570 Z922G06M1810 732 797 757 526 556 481 445 352 199 209 Z922G06M1820 262 206 374 508 433 450 327 416 494 620 Z922G06M1830 542 525 418 522 452 452 273 305 383 344 Z922G06M1840 494 678 908 476 691 1032 1081 984 984 954 Z922G06M1850 894 849 762 742 597 550 728 688 572 772 Z922G06M1860 866 1016 918 969 1026 993 1244 1434 1258 1160 Z922G06M1870 1058 940 1011 748 774 921 928 818 834 796 Z922G06M1880 826 904 721 722 846 852 854 664 764 1236 Z922G06M1890 838 848 764 752 771 819 659 502 650 530 Z922G06M1900 584 635 560 666 814 824 720 912 822 876 Z922G06M1910 670 844 796 563 786 746 766 844 700 566 Z922G06M1920 522 764 652 789 1006 828 714 821 643 700 Z922G06M1930 750 842 896 696 708 806 950 1007 955 946 Z922G06M1940 992 736 800 1204 1132 923 1278 1435 861 1263 Z922G06M1950 1300 1520 1706 1812 1626 1466 1368 1044 1289 1148 Z922G06M1960 896 1086 1210 1050 1038 1068 1186 1194 1014 1295 Z922G06M1970 1230 1054 807 807 926 701 635 834 931 906 Z922G06M1980 850 834 1100 904 505 912 854 964 1004 946 Z922G06M1990 956 1038 1249 1104 1495 1222 1192 1500 1686 1641 Z922G06M2000 1672 1865 1602 1397 1183 1324 1811 -9999 Z922G09M1903 2578 2904 2797 2337 2399 2456 2789 Z922G09M1910 2668 2388 1952 1687 2162 1755 1764 1840 1306 1533 Z922G09M1920 1474 2016 1416 1489 1437 1117 817 1208 2431 2356 Z922G09M1930 2119 2069 2551 2068 1822 2310 2301 2126 2218 2414 Z922G09M1940 2038 1812 1946 2420 2226 1966 3018 2952 2050 2324 Z922G09M1950 2954 2851 2400 1970 1946 1942 1996 1596 2494 2062 Z922G09M1960 1657 1756 1986 1894 1950 1736 2294 2288 1952 3382 Z922G09M1970 2510 2490 2618 3142 3007 2320 1752 2434 2244 2376 Z922G09M1980 2098 1878 2156 1896 1332 1460 1883 1953 2208 1907 Z922G09M1990 1848 2564 3295 2556 2412 2120 1728 1622 1828 1926 Z922G09M2000 2327 2226 1700 1377 1662 1667 1946 -9999 Z922G11M1804 3239 3002 2990 4435 2990 3040 Z922G11M1810 2022 3600 3070 2253 2556 1794 1732 1804 1088 893 Z922G11M1820 889 1000 1728 1952 1854 1807 1909 2116 1993 2052 Z922G11M1830 1956 1476 1492 1473 1653 1816 1212 1414 1411 1649 Z922G11M1840 1722 1690 2339 1551 1866 1915 2018 1988 1569 1420 Z922G11M1850 1417 1157 904 1150 1287 1526 1745 2195 1967 2447 Z922G11M1860 2014 2294 2188 2362 2396 2208 2362 2698 1988 2020 Z922G11M1870 2366 2086 2570 2214 1948 1922 2056 1955 1748 2072 Z922G11M1880 1960 2530 1712 1562 1696 1936 1710 1694 1808 2024 Z922G11M1890 1444 1366 1648 1582 1944 1554 1358 1585 1674 1446 Z922G11M1900 1477 1446 1308 1418 2204 1686 1350 1562 1456 1214 Z922G11M1910 1234 1669 1471 1002 1351 1542 1440 1826 1537 1264 Z922G11M1920 1262 2110 1746 2302 2363 1770 1424 1710 1828 1522 Z922G11M1930 1494 1816 1670 1387 1437 1948 1836 1768 1660 1484 Z922G11M1940 1142 1346 1400 1941 1623 1234 2053 2298 1030 1468 Z922G11M1950 1858 1912 1842 1585 1430 1396 1211 1050 1414 1188 Z922G11M1960 890 936 1039 892 924 922 984 1166 983 1408 Z922G11M1970 1318 1124 948 798 828 768 752 936 906 1117 Z922G11M1980 1032 897 1172 1040 610 900 970 893 873 684 Z922G11M1990 693 914 938 974 1167 1042 900 646 759 740 Z922G11M2000 756 882 734 676 546 590 672 -9999 Z922G12M1889 1801 Z922G12M1890 1733 1445 1684 1274 1112 792 793 868 970 814 Z922G12M1900 1069 1266 1479 1548 1960 1757 1450 1861 1660 1626 Z922G12M1910 1622 1752 1690 1332 1618 1761 1872 1822 1612 1254 Z922G12M1920 1098 1598 1496 1977 2502 2087 1702 2116 2208 2585 Z922G12M1930 1661 1852 2503 2331 2577 2298 1910 2254 2160 2200 Z922G12M1940 2337 2281 2300 2388 2484 2188 2675 3304 2120 2662 Z922G12M1950 2493 2441 2730 2662 2294 2160 2438 1988 2504 2169 Z922G12M1960 1912 1970 2128 2118 2274 2040 1958 1996 1781 2811 Z922G12M1970 2312 2110 1750 1751 1868 1668 1624 1887 1776 2155 Z922G12M1980 1909 1749 2320 2179 1638 2083 1997 2022 2186 2510 Z922G12M1990 2782 2835 3400 3254 3340 2586 2348 1902 1971 1970 Z922G12M2000 1804 1989 1586 1673 1260 1456 1628 -9999 Z922G14M1862 1599 1348 1250 1377 1124 1482 1051 1148 Z922G14M1870 998 991 1214 974 1249 1256 1272 1174 1051 1102 Z922G14M1880 1079 1094 924 934 910 900 870 1038 1013 891 Z922G14M1890 890 822 1057 942 952 921 784 962 968 792 Z922G14M1900 918 982 959 1058 1426 1400 1212 1206 1255 1134 Z922G14M1910 1124 1122 1055 810 992 992 1000 1246 1393 1144 Z922G14M1920 1195 1706 1302 1234 1242 1220 1071 1083 1318 1624 Z922G14M1930 1433 1720 2032 1418 1363 1417 1694 1452 1396 1568 Z922G14M1940 1517 1472 1462 1710 1557 1481 2208 2242 1393 1932 Z922G14M1950 2256 2732 2526 2016 1884 1799 1910 1354 1820 1486 Z922G14M1960 1430 1753 1953 1699 1745 1598 1904 2040 1730 2354 Z922G14M1970 1976 1858 1522 1400 1537 1226 1349 1468 1332 1504 Z922G14M1980 1452 1263 1434 1488 1175 1194 963 834 823 726 Z922G14M1990 718 778 758 760 828 807 564 463 528 552 Z922G14M2000 586 696 678 785 691 646 708 -9999 Z922G15M1867 612 802 1245 Z922G15M1870 1538 1558 1579 1208 1494 1362 1164 1086 1129 1051 Z922G15M1880 1091 1389 1269 1039 962 1123 1264 1004 655 872 Z922G15M1890 985 949 1134 1517 2025 2373 2133 2369 2721 2083 Z922G15M1900 2238 2350 2360 2650 3570 3732 3140 3210 3306 3142 Z922G15M1910 2672 2711 2512 2298 2624 2914 3213 3587 3366 2822 Z922G15M1920 2440 3576 2558 2512 2818 2584 2054 1810 2369 2368 Z922G15M1930 1721 1496 1560 1172 1146 1201 1284 1383 1402 1374 Z922G15M1940 1329 1182 1164 1248 1261 1168 1331 1488 1080 1267 Z922G15M1950 1090 1458 1360 1410 1186 1224 1436 1170 1806 1624 Z922G15M1960 1394 1440 2110 1840 1770 1680 1965 1878 1858 2834 Z922G15M1970 2328 2250 1644 1478 1457 1230 1315 1279 1178 1158 Z922G15M1980 1251 1270 1311 1661 1498 1541 1259 1234 1096 564 Z922G15M1990 741 958 1255 1045 1318 1344 1372 1146 1598 1402 Z922G15M2000 1465 1637 1364 1690 1216 1040 1216 -9999 Z922G16M1834 3021 3424 2650 2978 2399 2799 Z922G16M1840 2733 2502 2921 1734 2088 1985 2641 2795 2398 1893 Z922G16M1850 1518 1158 1137 1122 1022 1250 1481 1659 1732 2404 Z922G16M1860 2184 2952 2630 3224 4172 3482 2856 2962 2458 2698 Z922G16M1870 2492 2462 2609 2154 2287 1926 1978 2118 1662 1794 Z922G16M1880 1926 2204 1584 1466 1746 1942 1524 1436 1446 1894 Z922G16M1890 1374 1375 1694 1598 1586 1635 1504 1865 2012 1839 Z922G16M1900 1864 1790 1620 1886 2308 2055 1757 2012 1745 1437 Z922G16M1910 1916 2094 1640 1250 1460 1420 1216 1461 1073 1154 Z922G16M1920 899 1356 1013 1097 1296 1176 865 1072 1076 1184 Z922G16M1930 1141 1331 1324 1056 1062 1274 1312 1373 1514 1511 Z922G16M1940 1306 1376 1417 1878 1881 2156 2762 3171 1794 2186 Z922G16M1950 2516 3170 3599 3332 2778 2518 2822 2794 3530 2804 Z922G16M1960 2466 2505 2508 2572 2714 2502 2336 2271 1858 2488 Z922G16M1970 2302 2226 1723 1674 1542 1418 1424 1364 1087 1386 Z922G16M1980 1098 1042 1359 1335 1188 1450 1358 1358 1642 1283 Z922G16M1990 1328 1921 2134 1788 2098 1798 1854 1400 1437 1482 Z922G16M2000 1308 1217 1187 1262 1018 1135 1265 -9999 Z922G17M1805 1779 1917 2040 1448 1315 Z922G17M1810 1275 1344 1444 1045 1174 1028 982 1023 1290 1107 Z922G17M1820 801 582 918 1272 1267 1382 1230 1445 1414 1238 Z922G17M1830 1594 1243 1126 950 1118 872 661 670 774 867 Z922G17M1840 870 926 1091 784 874 846 1003 959 844 1422 Z922G17M1850 1168 1046 1191 1388 1045 1131 1252 1441 1438 1886 Z922G17M1860 1898 2244 1964 2180 2310 2278 2086 2606 2095 2116 Z922G17M1870 1964 1504 1634 1504 1716 1890 1975 1803 1344 1444 Z922G17M1880 1512 2030 1436 1570 1866 2302 2026 1941 2005 2472 Z922G17M1890 1664 1590 1844 2038 2150 2184 1910 2168 1953 2010 Z922G17M1900 2181 2288 2054 2229 2589 2380 1881 1742 1388 1054 Z922G17M1910 1500 1530 1070 903 904 1090 969 1473 1264 1156 Z922G17M1920 910 1410 1072 1192 1818 1478 1002 1212 1256 1320 Z922G17M1930 1065 1348 1200 864 954 972 825 814 818 764 Z922G17M1940 695 770 665 735 822 1058 1461 1816 916 1240 Z922G17M1950 1262 1988 2000 1659 1401 1059 1150 852 1320 911 Z922G17M1960 768 630 710 572 708 708 757 690 694 1162 Z922G17M1970 1076 904 700 844 726 688 669 679 590 802 Z922G17M1980 738 769 1140 1058 830 1078 996 902 1239 1091 Z922G17M1990 1124 1686 1856 1371 1661 1164 1099 856 862 820 Z922G17M2000 980 1109 1002 1184 1032 1172 1624 -9999 Z922G19M1838 698 541 Z922G19M1840 629 774 1009 807 805 968 1018 1257 1969 1489 Z922G19M1850 1560 1285 1176 1320 1168 1320 1696 1876 1397 1333 Z922G19M1860 1284 1546 1306 1344 1269 1164 1351 1370 1344 1383 Z922G19M1870 1447 1335 1333 856 1010 1118 1232 1383 1217 869 Z922G19M1880 726 872 702 740 759 760 684 803 748 986 Z922G19M1890 766 624 636 414 396 339 292 414 404 352 Z922G19M1900 377 494 484 630 946 955 656 785 1090 1147 Z922G19M1910 1304 1375 1158 840 796 692 582 884 554 628 Z922G19M1920 649 725 548 558 709 656 424 594 787 972 Z922G19M1930 772 1194 1288 846 931 1050 936 950 942 934 Z922G19M1940 755 834 924 901 757 782 643 858 652 908 Z922G19M1950 1176 1436 1407 1243 1148 989 1029 800 1048 866 Z922G19M1960 772 784 1067 940 1134 1224 1490 1764 1676 2422 Z922G19M1970 2116 1812 1419 1298 1212 759 988 962 937 1484 Z922G19M1980 1304 1240 1432 1384 1258 1257 1111 1182 1052 924 Z922G19M1990 892 1136 1250 1320 1408 1110 1106 996 1153 1138 Z922G19M2000 1128 1250 1148 1508 1357 1238 1602 -9999 Z922G20M1868 741 958 Z922G20M1870 1098 1212 1078 1016 1347 1428 1314 1190 660 759 Z922G20M1880 1015 1323 968 1183 1283 1190 946 850 920 1480 Z922G20M1890 1386 1136 984 1462 1739 2006 1762 1880 2277 1824 Z922G20M1900 1543 1375 1486 1752 2410 1782 1400 1534 1296 1140 Z922G20M1910 994 1078 948 1040 981 1234 1099 1343 962 996 Z922G20M1920 968 1451 1520 1526 1741 1314 849 870 969 1306 Z922G20M1930 1166 1382 1534 956 939 1142 1222 970 922 970 Z922G20M1940 891 752 912 1212 1128 806 1150 1215 757 922 Z922G20M1950 994 1238 1428 1235 1442 916 840 673 1004 918 Z922G20M1960 862 786 1052 939 1014 1091 1068 934 915 1256 Z922G20M1970 1143 1144 759 908 796 614 494 498 513 656 Z922G20M1980 522 472 703 650 490 532 608 625 527 424 Z922G20M1990 580 640 723 604 500 583 508 424 428 385 Z922G20M2000 525 553 480 563 448 422 654 -9999 Z922A02A1808 1066 857 Z922A02A1810 724 1279 1184 719 1072 886 1072 971 942 856 Z922A02A1820 776 718 1565 2341 1779 1752 1236 1606 1163 1536 Z922A02A1830 2023 2402 2004 1369 1676 2019 1018 1038 1110 1354 Z922A02A1840 1877 1868 2135 1420 1486 1486 1748 1897 1233 1582 Z922A02A1850 1444 1247 1463 1347 1083 990 1204 1435 1408 1666 Z922A02A1860 1262 1374 1461 1402 1348 1050 1335 1462 1445 1752 Z922A02A1870 1883 1437 1859 1622 1692 1998 2140 1996 1710 1902 Z922A02A1880 1637 1907 1617 1816 1840 1687 1249 1266 1370 1597 Z922A02A1890 1569 1624 2055 2104 1716 2079 1488 1808 1993 1473 Z922A02A1900 1457 1469 1228 1565 1722 1647 1547 1786 1705 1261 Z922A02A1910 1073 963 695 706 888 1024 898 966 665 572 Z922A02A1920 472 818 698 656 967 578 356 594 522 562 Z922A02A1930 528 642 583 584 397 738 724 718 638 592 Z922A02A1940 471 434 451 422 407 272 396 490 314 343 Z922A02A1950 470 485 382 328 304 437 392 386 386 475 Z922A02A1960 388 339 323 294 248 237 320 294 339 333 Z922A02A1970 325 214 245 206 209 189 182 275 187 222 Z922A02A1980 228 490 726 597 314 658 537 488 457 351 Z922A02A1990 328 380 314 345 348 285 302 182 254 169 Z922A02A2000 165 226 304 268 235 230 245 -9999 Z922G14M1870 2004 2178 2350 2322 2239 2448 2526 2268 1986 1884 Z922G14M1880 1968 2146 1892 1826 1894 1902 2162 2318 2254 2375 Z922G14M1890 2456 2076 1748 2188 1967 1799 1580 1326 1591 1197 Z922G14M1900 1371 1366 1560 1712 1981 2024 1572 1806 1634 1586 Z922G14M1910 1884 1786 1650 1074 1264 1156 925 1342 1203 1330 Z922G14M1920 1255 1627 1246 1632 1642 1319 1366 1464 1572 1998 Z922G14M1930 1826 1873 2310 1938 1958 2094 2084 2075 2106 2164 Z922G14M1940 2034 1700 1404 1560 1443 1455 1886 2056 1484 1730 Z922G14M1950 1894 2426 2596 2529 2007 1528 1794 1768 2527 2248 Z922G14M1960 2069 2296 2772 2250 2280 2032 2069 2152 1945 2184 Z922G14M1970 1960 1960 1504 1484 1742 1226 1560 1586 1535 1760 Z922G14M1980 1555 1574 1834 1776 1595 1987 2417 2380 2790 2084 Z922G14M1990 2327 2492 2452 1982 2740 2328 1811 1650 1894 1738 Z922G14M2000 1526 2358 2152 2378 2081 1444 1450 -9999 Z922G01M1880 2678 2064 1498 1415 1670 1635 1442 1303 1427 1827 Z922G01M1890 1359 1030 1208 1169 1036 1504 1234 1316 1911 1565 Z922G01M1900 1387 1353 1500 2064 2134 1529 1123 1316 1169 838 Z922G01M1910 834 959 1024 524 694 887 638 746 586 796 Z922G01M1920 676 975 1105 1362 1585 1293 1082 1418 1308 1240 Z922G01M1930 1038 1207 966 1013 1009 1449 1602 1334 1226 1464 Z922G01M1940 1075 1084 1122 1151 1247 1076 1088 796 835 785 Z922G01M1950 1066 1442 1467 1030 1015 864 918 1060 1046 1125 Z922G01M1960 947 1139 1200 849 839 864 779 995 862 1093 Z922G01M1970 991 950 1030 817 1042 674 803 796 677 668 Z922G01M1980 842 789 1026 1142 1079 1257 1036 1106 1503 1241 Z922G01M1990 1532 1711 1452 737 1198 1009 746 780 1134 710 Z922G01M2000 533 1475 1238 1124 1784 1146 1628 -9999 Z922G02M1876 931 941 935 823 Z922G02M1880 801 951 863 896 992 826 952 973 979 1182 Z922G02M1890 931 745 842 1102 936 971 1054 1303 1503 846 Z922G02M1900 899 1336 1147 1341 1637 1380 1400 1670 1870 1401 Z922G02M1910 1595 1884 1697 830 1106 1336 1140 1419 1472 1251 Z922G02M1920 1314 2040 1930 2296 2175 1742 1448 1566 1941 2006 Z922G02M1930 1617 1535 1628 1588 1654 2043 2286 2156 1707 2411 Z922G02M1940 1652 1410 1368 1548 1822 1730 2232 2818 2208 3107 Z922G02M1950 3190 3510 3238 2723 2166 2098 2122 1804 2738 2492 Z922G02M1960 2262 2724 3345 2896 2918 2330 2300 2134 2853 3430 Z922G02M1970 3167 3318 2278 2464 2832 1743 2645 2601 2098 2257 Z922G02M1980 2374 2692 3608 3464 2959 3100 2582 2342 2632 1637 Z922G02M1990 1634 1668 1955 1407 1840 1909 1726 1533 1888 1814 Z922G02M2000 1642 2168 2090 2662 2470 2273 2367 -9999 Z922G03M1863 2607 2812 2805 3308 2307 2839 3058 Z922G03M1870 3375 3102 2423 2660 2697 2773 2162 2587 1752 1997 Z922G03M1880 2204 2352 1994 2426 2218 2113 2354 2115 2204 2265 Z922G03M1890 2190 1846 2631 2656 2777 2543 1832 1926 2473 1841 Z922G03M1900 2426 2210 2245 2314 2664 2380 2175 2506 2163 2140 Z922G03M1910 2294 2334 2429 1686 2276 2148 1866 2034 1659 1823 Z922G03M1920 1564 2452 2474 2476 2645 2379 1898 2302 2615 2864 Z922G03M1930 1862 1768 1596 1490 1586 1980 1868 1562 1300 1500 Z922G03M1940 1540 1561 1964 2609 2380 2179 2694 2486 1858 2229 Z922G03M1950 2570 2978 2514 2177 2012 1699 1976 1862 2360 1918 Z922G03M1960 1606 1792 1852 1876 2254 2198 2290 1773 2041 2754 Z922G03M1970 2334 2224 1967 2185 2081 1540 1676 1780 1590 1767 Z922G03M1980 1744 1462 1810 1753 1820 1915 1840 1578 1600 1862 Z922G03M1990 1912 2166 2177 1802 2114 1982 1372 1552 1642 1278 Z922G03M2000 1094 2045 1684 1800 1943 1664 1872 -9999 Z922G04M1862 2079 1944 2055 2012 2068 2922 2466 3334 Z922G04M1870 2983 3162 2908 2693 2835 2566 2628 2526 2018 2660 Z922G04M1880 2549 2600 1714 1839 1627 1558 1721 1962 1889 1768 Z922G04M1890 1495 1602 1749 1391 1428 1198 1375 1774 2089 1652 Z922G04M1900 1814 1978 2078 1910 2274 1600 828 1068 1054 1084 Z922G04M1910 1178 1342 1257 744 1104 1143 1148 1217 820 1153 Z922G04M1920 1131 1530 1265 1662 1814 1404 1288 1342 1903 2223 Z922G04M1930 1972 1602 1288 1234 1380 1434 1563 1209 1484 1488 Z922G04M1940 1174 1036 1066 1316 1416 1227 1748 1970 1422 1635 Z922G04M1950 1588 2182 1623 1700 1486 1345 1239 1246 1750 1530 Z922G04M1960 1188 1142 1618 1440 1544 1522 1615 1689 1828 1946 Z922G04M1970 1939 1928 1412 1524 1806 1072 1653 1691 1296 1203 Z922G04M1980 1127 1342 1614 1649 1450 1408 1270 1090 1344 1177 Z922G04M1990 1664 1978 2721 1986 2322 2162 1878 1610 1774 1402 Z922G04M2000 1354 1672 1590 1922 1710 1788 1814 -9999 Z922G06M1872 1796 1791 2014 1932 2544 2030 1972 2276 Z922G06M1880 1838 1524 1178 1401 1465 1361 1334 1549 1567 1697 Z922G06M1890 1494 1552 1730 1670 2010 1678 1060 1676 2002 1522 Z922G06M1900 1413 1858 1960 1939 2032 1866 1840 1751 1954 2097 Z922G06M1910 1778 2000 1924 1420 1653 1338 1200 1366 1154 1132 Z922G06M1920 1050 1834 1818 2210 1926 2036 1857 1768 2158 2730 Z922G06M1930 2220 1990 1498 974 1072 1205 1272 1220 1562 1519 Z922G06M1940 1294 1002 983 854 802 766 966 1074 916 1059 Z922G06M1950 1364 1638 1966 2493 2030 1544 1503 1214 1418 1163 Z922G06M1960 1144 1146 1480 1194 1124 1080 1152 1252 1435 1718 Z922G06M1970 1582 1511 1020 881 916 778 1044 1038 786 1098 Z922G06M1980 1081 1822 2496 2996 2483 2393 2340 1626 1826 1340 Z922G06M1990 1287 1216 1605 1264 1947 1582 1370 1229 1444 1047 Z922G06M2000 1030 1124 1268 1516 1553 1224 1348 -9999 Z922G07M1831 1617 1780 1410 1596 1661 1198 1546 1354 2264 Z922G07M1840 2406 2395 2334 1922 2266 2052 2010 2448 2919 2129 Z922G07M1850 1613 1806 2244 2412 1612 2170 2371 2536 2505 3110 Z922G07M1860 2465 2186 2376 2818 2808 2690 2137 2663 2420 2381 Z922G07M1870 2155 2254 2341 2302 2380 2463 1767 1626 1335 1442 Z922G07M1880 1507 1801 1291 1552 1411 1218 1447 1526 1354 1517 Z922G07M1890 1266 1392 1360 1556 1509 1150 872 1188 1561 1496 Z922G07M1900 1518 1539 1857 1618 1786 1307 1237 1219 998 1200 Z922G07M1910 966 1110 1132 998 1256 1300 1266 1423 1086 964 Z922G07M1920 712 1172 1032 1443 1362 1387 1277 1420 1418 1460 Z922G07M1930 1470 1331 1322 1316 1377 1291 1422 1267 1352 1194 Z922G07M1940 1086 990 966 1296 1076 957 1212 1478 1224 1340 Z922G07M1950 1106 1447 1345 1310 1102 934 1010 760 1005 1045 Z922G07M1960 1005 921 912 862 962 928 1164 1018 1334 1884 Z922G07M1970 1842 1857 1374 1365 1339 950 1187 1138 1040 1219 Z922G07M1980 1108 1310 1310 1306 1082 1088 946 690 719 610 Z922G07M1990 605 584 746 467 688 658 498 528 563 531 Z922G07M2000 526 622 642 670 778 828 892 -9999 Z922G09M1861 1129 2009 2023 2023 2658 2360 2048 1851 2784 Z922G09M1870 1954 2171 2372 2204 2146 1930 1897 1792 1748 1459 Z922G09M1880 1600 1558 1463 1241 1468 1414 1198 1150 1600 2592 Z922G09M1890 1840 1094 724 750 635 940 926 1470 2003 2198 Z922G09M1900 1950 2182 2453 2502 2631 2215 1800 1712 1458 1630 Z922G09M1910 1534 1604 1939 998 868 902 810 1098 1164 1498 Z922G09M1920 1295 1893 1612 1759 1756 1388 1262 1650 2806 4262 Z922G09M1930 3485 2688 3100 2232 1728 1547 1464 1088 1067 1046 Z922G09M1940 962 884 1008 1556 1942 1681 2439 3266 1926 2416 Z922G09M1950 2450 3061 2654 2690 1684 1240 1316 1168 1653 1229 Z922G09M1960 1382 2366 3224 2324 1744 1042 1170 970 822 1472 Z922G09M1970 1646 1990 1532 1424 1449 1127 1608 1506 1163 1018 Z922G09M1980 1156 1774 3038 3711 2790 3076 2742 1969 1850 1590 Z922G09M1990 1527 1738 1839 1068 1274 1045 708 764 876 966 Z922G09M2000 840 1136 862 808 936 976 1136 -9999 Z922G10M1881 2728 1833 1874 1930 2066 2598 2616 2554 2390 Z922G10M1890 1912 1801 2214 2269 2106 2036 2106 2569 2724 2616 Z922G10M1900 2654 2743 2468 2668 3155 2472 2586 2924 2780 2242 Z922G10M1910 2396 2582 2146 1371 1687 1811 1776 2160 2070 2000 Z922G10M1920 1939 3382 2630 2354 2464 2162 1630 1838 2042 2212 Z922G10M1930 1901 1884 1504 1460 1754 1926 1844 1217 1114 1295 Z922G10M1940 1129 1194 1362 2223 2857 2751 2443 2512 1568 2081 Z922G10M1950 2295 3031 2819 2514 2304 1842 1916 1718 2080 1954 Z922G10M1960 1716 1898 2162 1649 2105 2361 2016 1784 2274 3046 Z922G10M1970 2383 1976 1728 1801 2201 1916 2478 2396 2224 2470 Z922G10M1980 2449 2500 2998 2706 2567 2606 2238 1978 1852 1690 Z922G10M1990 1728 1836 1912 1500 1906 1776 1308 1321 1725 1557 Z922G10M2000 1506 2035 1676 1938 1912 1856 1992 -9999 Z922G11M1880 1084 1166 1323 1296 1122 1037 1042 1047 908 788 Z922G11M1890 626 556 615 624 850 794 875 912 1044 898 Z922G11M1900 875 856 779 968 974 980 774 996 950 956 Z922G11M1910 872 1220 1188 930 1569 1255 1440 1409 1333 1610 Z922G11M1920 1288 2186 1656 1678 1348 1560 1222 1178 1680 1419 Z922G11M1930 1079 829 464 216 134 184 187 160 215 273 Z922G11M1940 316 359 378 423 450 409 460 533 489 575 Z922G11M1950 562 926 821 730 696 614 654 592 906 994 Z922G11M1960 884 877 922 726 844 862 877 1005 860 1324 Z922G11M1970 1056 1268 874 922 1116 1010 1337 1304 1136 1090 Z922G11M1980 1142 1289 1476 1690 1461 1429 1432 1140 1323 1118 Z922G11M1990 960 1094 1512 1073 1406 1122 720 868 1172 892 Z922G11M2000 890 1402 906 1032 1171 1082 1056 -9999 Z922G12M1868 2286 3932 Z922G12M1870 2590 2002 2008 1686 1400 1540 1737 1716 1846 1516 Z922G12M1880 1832 2008 1562 1730 1578 1955 1882 1775 1618 2702 Z922G12M1890 1921 1724 1956 2100 2706 2052 1826 2293 2344 1756 Z922G12M1900 1640 1638 1845 1956 2130 1629 1346 1655 1546 1279 Z922G12M1910 1492 1840 1356 1168 1099 1046 814 1286 1194 980 Z922G12M1920 1210 1664 1206 1640 2000 1932 1717 1903 2768 2482 Z922G12M1930 1828 1713 1632 1532 1532 2005 1710 1197 1964 3010 Z922G12M1940 2824 2776 2999 4887 4374 3160 3189 3988 2340 3042 Z922G12M1950 2835 2816 3106 3128 2577 2221 1764 1436 2050 1712 Z922G12M1960 1759 2384 2016 2361 2496 2466 2810 2238 2302 3058 Z922G12M1970 2206 2524 1880 1728 2254 2050 2799 2708 2290 2303 Z922G12M1980 2262 2416 3258 2787 2472 2406 2010 1598 1634 1281 Z922G12M1990 1727 1609 1388 1379 1949 1840 1191 971 1255 1145 Z922G12M2000 1079 1224 1006 952 864 802 894 -9999 Z922G13M1880 2257 2183 1974 1736 1948 2252 2198 2144 2032 2026 Z922G13M1890 2244 3334 3080 2533 2800 2844 2582 2596 3446 2868 Z922G13M1900 2833 3213 3196 3781 3964 3200 3048 2942 3336 3120 Z922G13M1910 2524 3220 2285 1374 1612 1916 1882 2203 1667 1600 Z922G13M1920 1212 2706 2060 1982 1680 1262 1034 1170 1516 1370 Z922G13M1930 1126 1177 1054 926 846 1055 1225 1044 868 1267 Z922G13M1940 1322 1785 2226 3018 2828 2546 3100 3589 2112 2909 Z922G13M1950 3529 3746 3452 2501 1934 1845 1808 1520 1908 1510 Z922G13M1960 1331 1565 1695 1528 1491 1606 1692 1583 1764 2106 Z922G13M1970 1680 1736 1379 1483 1561 1044 1534 1413 1570 2033 Z922G13M1980 2062 1834 2308 2072 1486 1624 1881 1626 1698 1476 Z922G13M1990 1728 1764 2368 1948 2722 2094 1528 2270 2216 1363 Z922G13M2000 1256 1559 1252 1370 1003 1011 1046 -9999 Z922G05M1875 1436 1087 1374 1487 1459 Z922G05M1880 1504 1525 1701 1431 1395 1355 1357 1539 1506 1555 Z922G05M1890 1480 1436 1528 1740 1820 1564 1088 1422 1674 1538 Z922G05M1900 1685 1714 1966 2004 2264 1521 1896 1890 1610 1768 Z922G05M1910 1474 1902 1766 1172 1488 1340 1351 1494 1020 1115 Z922G05M1920 958 1564 1432 1900 2062 2084 1804 1940 2020 1988 Z922G05M1930 1802 1780 1537 1488 1624 1866 1559 1319 1580 1730 Z922G05M1940 1480 1284 1266 1886 1367 1305 1608 1957 1351 1946 Z922G05M1950 1937 2044 1762 1463 1319 1210 1467 1319 1757 1432 Z922G05M1960 1521 1414 1560 1370 1459 1468 1281 1347 1359 1778 Z922G05M1970 1804 1688 1278 1190 1527 1228 2009 1486 1277 1304 Z922G05M1980 1306 1285 1808 2212 1933 1904 2041 1634 1710 1634 Z922G05M1990 1900 2214 3226 1879 2677 2264 1270 1595 2010 1396 Z922G05M2000 1359 1863 1752 1863 1652 1404 1709 -9999 L931N21m1843 795 1027 1544 2283 2225 1692 2356 L931N21m1850 1372 975 944 1174 885 1382 1682 1506 1729 1258 L931N21m1860 1317 1402 1224 1300 1246 984 1120 1519 1182 783 L931N21m1870 1281 860 761 1060 1138 1345 990 1080 826 907 L931N21m1880 901 2086 1579 1052 1124 1311 1179 1399 1134 1355 L931N21m1890 1107 1052 1062 921 1015 1011 1000 1051 894 932 L931N21m1900 1260 1423 1472 1422 1240 1314 1204 1061 1408 1144 L931N21m1910 1326 1192 1267 1061 1279 1539 1401 1706 1299 1254 L931N21m1920 1177 1638 1780 1344 1334 1205 723 1232 1210 1304 L931N21m1930 1400 1630 870 507 681 1000 898 887 942 788 L931N21m1940 750 736 920 1002 976 1032 812 974 892 875 L931N21m1950 1039 960 1158 778 866 812 684 777 831 754 L931N21m1960 768 821 982 891 971 1004 978 1035 786 954 L931N21m1970 1063 1003 1056 996 940 785 746 694 768 893 L931N21m1980 668 940 1126 911 975 981 1368 927 898 860 L931N21m1990 931 934 916 1256 1323 943 1005 1018 1376 1092 L931N21m2000 1329 1449 1322 1366 1223 1314 1039 -9999 L931N22m1775 1016 1440 940 767 527 L931N22m1780 2020 1299 2094 1203 2798 2747 3507 2983 1503 1165 L931N22m1790 1307 1067 973 1230 885 1040 1032 1159 972 888 L931N22m1800 1107 1195 752 430 398 450 356 418 292 225 L931N22m1810 306 454 612 616 882 648 390 422 537 358 L931N22m1820 458 348 772 847 698 777 922 1464 1644 1210 L931N22m1830 776 1182 902 1336 1299 1182 1022 1015 1035 817 L931N22m1840 966 884 1707 667 619 725 1476 1920 1169 1316 L931N22m1850 600 662 892 1100 918 1166 1193 1310 1494 1262 L931N22m1860 1116 1149 938 1028 962 1202 1302 872 1113 1240 L931N22m1870 2031 1315 1146 1914 1994 1830 1098 1206 846 1301 L931N22m1880 590 563 490 450 570 782 540 1001 512 688 L931N22m1890 406 522 714 680 820 760 828 622 800 811 L931N22m1900 1020 1294 830 859 936 955 826 695 780 545 L931N22m1910 812 884 1162 618 618 944 854 1806 1140 772 L931N22m1920 655 1197 1304 502 1034 882 472 636 975 976 L931N22m1930 1010 1218 796 354 795 876 716 1003 992 858 L931N22m1940 606 742 907 982 976 802 514 852 468 691 L931N22m1950 1258 752 820 369 431 350 334 344 532 539 L931N22m1960 456 544 842 548 778 770 787 875 613 894 L931N22m1970 1006 718 651 770 733 508 744 664 562 874 L931N22m1980 480 654 932 988 1070 832 1114 652 504 416 L931N22m1990 392 412 320 600 760 638 713 748 1060 735 L931N22m2000 851 1214 792 939 981 918 990 -9999 L931N23m1918 1102 1220 L931N23m1920 1350 888 971 368 716 771 453 905 882 1288 L931N23m1930 1500 2352 1704 1262 1804 2124 1748 2102 2090 1718 L931N23m1940 1506 1386 1446 1713 1828 1969 1243 2065 1830 2220 L931N23m1950 3232 2656 1676 1113 1509 1760 1196 1206 1487 1080 L931N23m1960 1350 790 1031 871 1298 1090 1206 1302 994 1584 L931N23m1970 1808 1746 1628 1496 1512 1098 1302 1596 1341 2232 L931N23m1980 1937 2312 3550 3523 2522 2236 2538 1836 1624 1372 L931N23m1990 1208 1612 2002 2778 3146 3133 2172 2406 2846 2305 L931N23m2000 2062 2123 2106 1908 1352 1582 1774 -9999 L931N24m1803 771 1100 1213 1468 2336 2301 5348 L931N24m1810 2682 2712 1462 570 420 498 396 786 849 385 L931N24m1820 448 304 853 1622 1831 1898 1816 2153 2535 1696 L931N24m1830 2096 2176 2377 2888 2770 2934 2626 1768 1714 1390 L931N24m1840 1462 1443 3172 1522 2229 2253 1768 2382 1746 2142 L931N24m1850 1413 1508 1534 2315 1882 2388 2238 2332 2816 2558 L931N24m1860 1974 2065 2064 2186 1964 1910 1882 1172 1612 1244 L931N24m1870 2042 846 1148 2161 1359 1811 1530 1367 1370 1483 L931N24m1880 781 915 794 649 866 1358 1004 1726 906 1466 L931N24m1890 890 948 1439 1640 1707 1618 1796 1500 1118 1462 L931N24m1900 1650 1979 1470 1085 1758 1564 942 888 1164 580 L931N24m1910 778 768 1158 596 577 836 768 1942 1290 1119 L931N24m1920 972 1306 1602 1130 1064 976 522 1088 1312 1355 L931N24m1930 1744 1862 924 866 1574 2009 1034 1216 1338 1040 L931N24m1940 882 1198 1260 1498 1450 1464 724 1356 819 1222 L931N24m1950 1530 1436 1338 284 660 714 641 878 1066 944 L931N24m1960 848 780 946 737 1148 1023 1085 1140 637 890 L931N24m1970 1008 946 986 1071 876 739 966 708 515 885 L931N24m1980 780 882 1316 996 894 921 1329 960 644 674 L931N24m1990 469 666 632 956 951 770 712 920 1476 712 L931N24m2000 746 1128 1126 1260 942 954 782 -9999 L931N25m1936 247 254 475 573 L931N25m1940 617 470 726 966 1258 1392 1145 1220 1215 1592 L931N25m1950 1492 756 860 1016 1296 1006 916 1003 1590 1166 L931N25m1960 1388 1252 1462 1748 1864 1897 2006 2414 1780 2246 L931N25m1970 2470 2520 2723 2495 2036 1016 1320 1341 1382 2070 L931N25m1980 1812 2076 3070 3267 2624 2335 3118 2442 2310 1638 L931N25m1990 1523 1955 1881 2444 2340 2298 2304 2880 4568 4044 L931N25m2000 3682 3256 2708 2706 2367 1937 2148 -9999 L931N27m1789 848 L931N27m1790 971 1287 1488 1124 1320 1464 1214 1362 766 594 L931N27m1800 613 358 484 1094 1802 1807 2085 2000 1348 2750 L931N27m1810 1646 2056 1898 1079 1412 1254 1116 1982 2428 1449 L931N27m1820 1489 1048 2306 2094 1976 1708 1236 1611 2030 1993 L931N27m1830 1676 1862 1650 2486 2767 2333 1857 1930 1796 1902 L931N27m1840 1900 1830 2784 1626 1656 1664 2175 2108 1486 1790 L931N27m1850 1543 1360 1658 1404 1140 1558 1912 1784 1976 1746 L931N27m1860 1411 1604 1606 1569 1496 1726 1786 1584 1261 1120 L931N27m1870 1608 1126 1249 1888 1627 1802 1450 1124 1065 1414 L931N27m1880 1354 1228 828 834 873 1071 788 1680 866 1252 L931N27m1890 712 871 990 876 881 888 1200 1051 920 1078 L931N27m1900 992 1079 866 754 972 946 666 776 1108 867 L931N27m1910 1028 1021 1124 731 866 860 813 1374 908 962 L931N27m1920 1015 1250 1252 824 904 1026 696 944 1080 1050 L931N27m1930 1061 1383 948 628 1042 1542 894 992 1165 826 L931N27m1940 758 844 940 1309 1250 1346 954 1325 860 1214 L931N27m1950 1292 1426 1198 512 499 453 504 676 902 869 L931N27m1960 756 774 816 900 948 801 926 1076 660 942 L931N27m1970 888 900 763 845 804 605 734 767 693 978 L931N27m1980 868 901 1274 1104 837 906 1183 886 843 799 L931N27m1990 766 873 1259 1227 1140 940 958 1290 1450 1002 L931N27m2000 1172 1380 1106 1218 1052 1174 1088 -9999 L931N28m1849 574 L931N28m1850 429 463 466 591 314 549 544 647 1094 646 L931N28m1860 1168 1230 1184 1144 1202 1534 1984 1613 1386 1311 L931N28m1870 2158 1150 1238 1998 1944 1944 1326 1282 1096 1268 L931N28m1880 1048 1067 1081 1069 1236 922 680 1520 1116 947 L931N28m1890 750 876 1097 758 1054 1222 1360 1306 1336 1420 L931N28m1900 1096 1473 1159 1076 1710 1720 1386 1253 2330 976 L931N28m1910 1448 1178 1438 940 924 1158 1392 1706 1576 1224 L931N28m1920 1286 1110 1396 854 1129 1340 702 974 1195 1478 L931N28m1930 1852 2290 1238 778 1332 1628 1058 1238 1229 1022 L931N28m1940 855 1168 1300 1591 1574 1668 920 2229 1176 1578 L931N28m1950 2318 1849 1782 1062 838 963 782 806 896 1124 L931N28m1960 1352 1318 1585 1136 1418 1244 1510 1783 1200 1572 L931N28m1970 1708 1512 1265 1330 1320 1379 1510 1032 873 1520 L931N28m1980 934 1284 1858 2122 1875 1360 1981 1368 1328 1176 L931N28m1990 848 1242 1040 1376 1458 1582 1297 1344 2010 1306 L931N28m2000 1667 1795 1268 1622 1166 1417 1092 -9999 L931N29m1867 2838 1936 2290 L931N29m1870 3045 2712 2932 3468 2049 2661 2592 1606 2201 1822 L931N29m1880 2237 2486 2058 1558 1948 2224 2168 3472 2148 2268 L931N29m1890 2532 2604 3030 2416 2752 3020 3000 2619 2312 2497 L931N29m1900 2724 2358 1984 1630 2486 2052 1946 1842 2919 1545 L931N29m1910 2330 2402 2584 1777 2096 2438 2250 4386 2915 2696 L931N29m1920 2992 3690 2858 1815 2116 2063 1103 1364 1511 1394 L931N29m1930 1986 2566 1458 942 1922 2088 1237 1288 1143 954 L931N29m1940 808 1028 1190 1525 1570 1474 1098 2044 1143 1188 L931N29m1950 2338 1350 1005 716 858 712 631 642 862 778 L931N29m1960 1071 918 1346 868 1040 820 989 1184 848 1031 L931N29m1970 1248 964 1085 1054 930 868 908 734 562 878 L931N29m1980 585 744 1278 1048 1135 958 1424 868 770 702 L931N29m1990 562 686 626 816 980 960 942 902 1456 947 L931N29m2000 1294 1412 946 1420 1552 2106 1478 -9999 L931N30m1762 2234 2448 1780 1450 1790 2130 2384 1730 L931N30m1770 1311 1236 1247 1618 1484 1680 1868 1694 1961 1387 L931N30m1780 2261 2021 2709 1316 2339 1726 1832 1762 2352 2059 L931N30m1790 2142 2052 1653 2809 2370 1496 1702 1482 2071 1600 L931N30m1800 1516 1052 2124 1488 1694 1468 1690 2064 1788 1553 L931N30m1810 1267 1888 1337 744 1041 1162 1103 1468 1806 1124 L931N30m1820 1356 1051 3210 2507 2092 2005 1896 1890 1372 1596 L931N30m1830 1178 1562 1107 1698 1896 2106 1861 1350 1152 1386 L931N30m1840 1404 865 2558 2176 2074 2026 1868 2223 1783 2474 L931N30m1850 1970 1806 2093 2248 1388 1660 1489 1404 1846 1836 L931N30m1860 1663 2598 2158 2223 1850 1824 2368 1577 1354 1475 L931N30m1870 1969 1196 967 1765 1574 1709 1190 1218 722 1034 L931N30m1880 1156 1676 1085 818 870 998 567 1224 793 873 L931N30m1890 822 764 638 643 980 806 1012 728 568 654 L931N30m1900 673 689 728 675 1043 994 551 656 1026 477 L931N30m1910 904 814 848 556 564 664 412 870 450 544 L931N30m1920 528 708 638 344 464 427 300 330 400 306 L931N30m1930 478 628 432 250 329 524 477 472 455 366 L931N30m1940 340 354 430 379 444 330 315 441 430 330 L931N30m1950 427 570 323 316 236 221 210 168 198 162 L931N30m1960 208 166 250 208 296 277 310 308 204 244 L931N30m1970 332 189 316 320 220 106 210 192 160 209 L931N30m1980 141 178 196 170 182 206 188 168 161 206 L931N30m1990 141 238 130 221 162 216 248 292 420 397 L931N30m2000 330 438 391 434 349 355 397 -9999 L931N31m1916 632 568 927 782 L931N31m1920 979 1020 1681 715 1358 1000 619 665 835 1177 L931N31m1930 1434 1064 963 623 827 1004 1004 1112 1116 981 L931N31m1940 770 1058 1240 1404 1134 1101 804 1210 786 1141 L931N31m1950 1529 1512 1201 688 712 692 444 408 398 459 L931N31m1960 654 531 1012 964 1154 992 1058 1252 1279 1514 L931N31m1970 1594 1379 1274 1189 1185 460 640 550 519 896 L931N31m1980 678 870 1173 1328 1498 1206 1523 1020 916 964 L931N31m1990 562 840 896 1256 1412 1884 1476 2199 3168 2709 L931N31m2000 2944 2786 2343 2020 1410 2022 2080 -9999 L931N32m1802 432 297 477 1018 1704 1696 812 852 L931N32m1810 940 1182 1058 966 1006 976 1142 1918 1935 1824 L931N32m1820 1598 1628 2560 2612 2470 1972 1910 2236 2470 2098 L931N32m1830 2016 1728 1954 2514 2924 2366 1854 1830 1734 1800 L931N32m1840 1816 1978 2629 1738 2512 2326 2436 2880 1770 2156 L931N32m1850 1424 1142 1670 2096 1668 1738 1837 1938 2478 2169 L931N32m1860 1814 1796 1780 1713 1834 1867 1796 1948 1376 1198 L931N32m1870 2077 1068 1394 2125 1707 1284 1127 1360 1112 1128 L931N32m1880 1278 1724 1088 1032 1093 1422 1154 1996 1048 1226 L931N32m1890 1085 1272 1156 1268 1162 1066 1600 1122 961 1030 L931N32m1900 1232 1428 1170 926 1718 1508 1078 1240 1887 640 L931N32m1910 1020 1234 1766 1054 1030 1585 1278 2384 1511 1374 L931N32m1920 1222 1450 1850 1493 2138 1394 684 1275 1316 1083 L931N32m1930 1420 1802 1338 1150 1428 1729 1596 1304 1363 1174 L931N32m1940 894 1152 1252 1322 1371 1462 912 1618 1074 1204 L931N32m1950 1454 1328 1294 622 656 722 557 532 678 504 L931N32m1960 587 443 782 688 897 914 812 966 851 1068 L931N32m1970 1102 901 906 816 825 520 734 532 528 692 L931N32m1980 450 605 1100 932 960 690 1128 927 1014 1090 L931N32m1990 848 1089 553 959 1040 1292 1102 875 1376 1066 L931N32m2000 1178 1252 872 1064 1002 1336 1388 -9999 L931N33m1835 3322 2141 2191 1878 2191 L931N33m1840 2435 2145 4081 2374 2760 2660 2860 3138 1988 2423 L931N33m1850 1866 1724 1932 2668 2224 2307 2086 1776 2397 2352 L931N33m1860 2100 1596 1566 1881 2125 2886 2556 2606 2310 2411 L931N33m1870 3346 1804 1941 2988 2841 3726 2578 2318 2165 1370 L931N33m1880 1161 1482 1069 962 990 1710 1236 2441 1438 1859 L931N33m1890 1002 1108 914 936 1200 1210 1388 1444 838 1253 L931N33m1900 1566 1487 1426 1082 2033 1840 1668 1432 2462 952 L931N33m1910 1296 1368 2079 1100 862 1732 986 2784 1724 1435 L931N33m1920 1246 1261 1965 747 1720 1288 462 1012 1222 1493 L931N33m1930 1806 2294 1178 930 1572 2384 1392 1546 1362 970 L931N33m1940 854 1072 1118 1350 1243 1060 724 1203 630 1116 L931N33m1950 1626 1502 1292 480 626 383 360 372 418 328 L931N33m1960 414 300 517 539 728 736 735 730 578 672 L931N33m1970 923 630 678 1008 643 434 708 514 342 580 L931N33m1980 347 368 708 700 698 598 820 616 590 410 L931N33m1990 272 462 427 680 630 667 656 616 854 813 L931N33m2000 912 1012 991 1492 1164 1034 1036 -9999 L931N34m1799 882 L931N34m1800 1002 460 629 551 616 778 1266 1620 1072 1166 L931N34m1810 1294 1406 1057 624 988 670 984 1578 1794 1568 L931N34m1820 1754 1132 2282 1827 1592 1562 1452 1160 1118 1280 L931N34m1830 804 1428 1046 1570 1986 1652 1798 1746 1518 1615 L931N34m1840 1530 1509 2048 1648 1690 1688 1794 1888 1632 1962 L931N34m1850 1434 1168 1150 1365 1058 1001 995 1105 1463 1304 L931N34m1860 1540 1340 1494 1517 1440 1422 1640 1604 2016 1678 L931N34m1870 2159 1404 1426 2246 2010 1869 1615 1542 1402 1572 L931N34m1880 1585 1903 1561 1288 1180 1102 880 1320 1013 1092 L931N34m1890 1170 958 868 851 826 869 1053 1058 1233 1164 L931N34m1900 1193 1306 1462 1444 2134 1862 1208 1236 1490 712 L931N34m1910 1045 988 1106 766 700 1000 631 1074 766 675 L931N34m1920 864 946 1062 1020 1156 1078 560 828 898 1040 L931N34m1930 1070 1414 912 666 862 1128 902 967 1202 994 L931N34m1940 858 788 904 868 737 946 654 996 577 716 L931N34m1950 1243 1491 1308 679 737 720 526 479 592 419 L931N34m1960 556 402 584 622 494 536 602 577 361 478 L931N34m1970 609 424 412 460 318 270 340 291 262 256 L931N34m1980 187 231 488 400 442 354 580 392 462 339 L931N34m1990 338 442 378 544 452 479 476 358 536 600 L931N34m2000 566 617 599 714 707 700 826 -9999 L931N35m1873 2817 2630 1973 1326 1295 905 3071 L931N35m1880 2097 1799 1450 1017 940 1324 1000 1670 1764 1638 L931N35m1890 867 806 750 814 1025 1498 1585 1508 1244 1188 L931N35m1900 1176 1392 1224 1126 908 1258 960 890 1238 853 L931N35m1910 1094 998 1622 1008 975 1132 1014 1504 1343 1422 L931N35m1920 1428 1588 1696 1158 1478 1366 888 1122 1430 1258 L931N35m1930 1404 1821 1102 840 1123 1156 1000 1174 1197 1087 L931N35m1940 836 840 1131 1490 1286 1446 950 1190 1051 1110 L931N35m1950 1648 1310 1328 797 774 688 536 684 880 1124 L931N35m1960 980 986 1474 1186 1376 1260 1048 1373 680 926 L931N35m1970 1116 954 1168 1244 1104 777 889 763 690 1117 L931N35m1980 762 915 1312 1302 1186 800 1436 872 932 934 L931N35m1990 892 946 710 1007 1060 1138 904 1166 1552 1192 L931N35m2000 1414 1394 1056 1600 1619 1912 1736 -9999 L931N36m1931 1065 1119 922 1420 1340 1274 1356 1280 984 L931N36m1940 914 1267 1764 3150 2718 3240 1762 1882 1540 1804 L931N36m1950 4478 2841 1789 1363 1582 1702 1648 1548 1824 1280 L931N36m1960 1115 1072 1528 2014 2158 1834 1639 1873 1940 2495 L931N36m1970 2624 2718 2064 2328 2284 1415 2145 1743 1561 2112 L931N36m1980 1402 1843 2872 2206 1814 2327 2380 1934 1554 1650 L931N36m1990 1704 1886 2436 3422 2624 1967 1637 2019 2906 2250 L931N36m2000 2692 2341 1920 3102 2256 2417 2226 -9999 L931N37m1761 1455 790 1261 1156 674 623 875 1190 1138 L931N37m1770 671 803 965 1268 1485 1339 1240 1217 1198 846 L931N37m1780 1017 836 1100 894 1412 1011 1144 1077 854 872 L931N37m1790 760 574 831 1052 907 1038 962 1235 2063 1563 L931N37m1800 1602 888 1348 1707 1806 1723 1264 1512 1470 1089 L931N37m1810 1143 1298 1288 660 614 480 508 638 864 863 L931N37m1820 780 538 1664 1145 1144 1246 1118 1130 950 1100 L931N37m1830 540 1016 850 742 820 832 754 607 584 732 L931N37m1840 518 390 766 462 550 556 560 864 710 922 L931N37m1850 658 578 636 790 609 516 797 660 844 860 L931N37m1860 683 673 830 684 674 724 872 694 822 491 L931N37m1870 1056 455 555 1068 756 908 796 767 573 588 L931N37m1880 606 845 451 528 451 718 408 788 530 604 L931N37m1890 516 591 686 588 548 607 828 559 576 678 L931N37m1900 734 922 832 656 956 980 750 840 980 496 L931N37m1910 674 632 1030 586 461 646 534 691 514 560 L931N37m1920 543 744 1032 504 770 692 414 622 677 572 L931N37m1930 644 728 386 254 350 574 342 480 578 615 L931N37m1940 518 660 558 618 598 790 472 913 632 788 L931N37m1950 907 362 476 284 353 314 208 316 388 314 L931N37m1960 330 368 474 252 381 448 472 566 402 420 L931N37m1970 507 324 502 536 358 264 446 357 276 444 L931N37m1980 216 442 684 486 602 442 730 419 339 377 L931N37m1990 252 648 306 726 491 622 517 530 878 452 L931N37m2000 690 728 568 790 714 832 856 -9999 L931N38m1786 1009 750 794 668 L931N38m1790 534 595 988 1052 522 1346 430 683 945 590 L931N38m1800 383 224 631 927 928 2947 1973 1285 838 634 L931N38m1810 1469 1489 906 408 617 489 1359 1689 1622 731 L931N38m1820 686 412 1348 1063 648 806 552 920 796 1280 L931N38m1830 726 1237 1275 1952 1792 1562 1461 1011 964 1534 L931N38m1840 1128 1284 1178 976 1466 1542 1611 1843 1902 1540 L931N38m1850 1116 1038 1018 983 962 1061 1315 1316 1200 1312 L931N38m1860 970 707 969 1120 1100 1292 1552 1604 1300 1904 L931N38m1870 2304 1342 1616 1702 1599 1412 1282 895 528 2628 L931N38m1880 2115 1990 1140 562 444 506 576 910 756 648 L931N38m1890 677 468 599 762 908 942 1363 1112 1068 830 L931N38m1900 840 1285 1078 882 1940 2135 1646 1170 1518 566 L931N38m1910 1036 1012 1134 610 526 630 492 560 478 585 L931N38m1920 534 610 892 744 834 860 826 756 1094 958 L931N38m1930 1304 1316 642 393 730 1222 672 705 738 734 L931N38m1940 740 1052 1154 1166 1206 1464 874 1714 937 1573 L931N38m1950 2620 1819 1318 688 481 641 500 481 774 722 L931N38m1960 828 951 1108 749 626 916 726 926 872 760 L931N38m1970 1025 1109 1148 1381 1362 859 674 826 596 868 L931N38m1980 510 514 1078 1028 1140 1110 1622 1097 882 816 L931N38m1990 625 884 982 1111 1426 1206 1154 1299 1770 1344 L931N38m2000 1563 1536 1198 1036 1088 1250 1494 -9999 L931N40m1876 799 1385 818 596 L931N40m1880 854 1051 1134 836 862 816 680 1108 950 890 L931N40m1890 1270 1013 1018 938 1002 1159 1306 1034 1287 1421 L931N40m1900 995 1278 1414 1532 1576 1450 1106 1048 1201 747 L931N40m1910 812 1058 1136 982 1096 1335 926 1270 1346 1205 L931N40m1920 1444 1492 1126 1154 1401 1305 866 1285 1614 1227 L931N40m1930 1432 1817 1525 1192 1622 1442 1348 1788 1868 1610 L931N40m1940 1536 1820 1796 1850 1896 2162 2232 2414 2298 2310 L931N40m1950 2398 1925 1812 1828 1694 1411 747 963 1154 991 L931N40m1960 854 1048 1582 1650 1712 1414 1264 1574 1252 1595 L931N40m1970 1738 1523 1713 1544 1690 1372 1245 1109 940 1140 L931N40m1980 1002 996 1522 1648 1348 1552 1897 1582 1858 2506 L931N40m1990 1811 2402 2044 1950 1703 1516 1104 1230 1356 1597 L931N40m2000 1504 2320 2168 2564 2438 2234 2291 -9999 L931S71m1781 1294 1488 1035 1715 1440 1020 566 1094 854 L931S71m1790 892 848 881 1387 1348 716 781 1850 1832 979 L931S71m1800 704 280 884 624 756 438 339 640 483 491 L931S71m1810 260 632 677 297 304 234 130 314 636 440 L931S71m1820 456 318 956 891 766 762 658 700 864 936 L931S71m1830 334 532 466 884 1065 920 913 702 446 694 L931S71m1840 536 286 664 403 544 551 940 1416 867 1236 L931S71m1850 1098 916 603 728 552 738 744 956 1290 706 L931S71m1860 712 486 454 488 628 1039 1171 1070 998 1010 L931S71m1870 1539 762 746 1228 1138 913 461 501 250 350 L931S71m1880 718 1188 476 603 485 506 422 576 346 580 L931S71m1890 288 320 386 419 292 384 341 316 345 500 L931S71m1900 540 695 618 502 987 716 710 553 808 469 L931S71m1910 335 390 450 254 178 284 216 541 576 491 L931S71m1920 422 607 961 722 920 773 388 791 834 657 L931S71m1930 770 1431 1132 732 731 1190 1156 1794 1409 1132 L931S71m1940 1050 1281 1234 1414 1654 1342 1384 1366 496 730 L931S71m1950 584 588 649 346 466 399 274 318 410 332 L931S71m1960 332 310 542 392 510 330 567 752 592 570 L931S71m1970 696 730 501 508 395 204 278 270 197 343 L931S71m1980 206 276 412 354 468 358 480 488 352 288 L931S71m1990 266 432 430 588 770 928 724 474 671 494 L931S71m2000 813 976 766 900 850 986 1013 842 -9999 L931S73m1875 1919 1519 1793 1756 1834 L931S73m1880 1408 1763 997 748 1102 1752 1786 2002 2113 1631 L931S73m1890 1212 1298 1886 2044 2463 3076 2126 1564 1566 1917 L931S73m1900 2050 2204 1860 1834 2806 2620 1680 1808 2254 1374 L931S73m1910 1582 1280 1502 1110 794 1621 2241 3456 2817 1428 L931S73m1920 1236 1382 1733 1542 1570 1330 829 1548 1828 2158 L931S73m1930 1938 2523 2053 1372 1415 1742 1600 1559 1660 1547 L931S73m1940 1522 1614 2088 2810 2658 1987 1559 1856 872 1089 L931S73m1950 1534 1395 1685 854 762 740 816 1093 1398 1103 L931S73m1960 1178 1038 1404 1054 998 1119 988 1268 936 1103 L931S73m1970 1296 1322 1062 1128 1214 520 576 592 695 1349 L931S73m1980 1212 1014 1570 1306 1082 1034 1220 1130 1034 633 L931S73m1990 511 923 605 852 768 1020 873 742 1363 1473 L931S73m2000 1634 2128 1839 1533 1048 849 940 957 -9999 L931S74m1835 581 635 486 354 354 L931S74m1840 438 131 285 123 334 240 482 661 335 320 L931S74m1850 247 390 270 276 330 417 564 796 1037 640 L931S74m1860 663 604 740 939 1154 1195 1046 906 575 476 L931S74m1870 1088 785 779 897 1391 1590 970 1060 671 696 L931S74m1880 742 1372 1030 880 863 1108 1023 1548 1152 1428 L931S74m1890 1180 1329 1236 1095 1158 956 806 839 1010 1055 L931S74m1900 1019 1496 981 988 1124 940 735 738 1256 795 L931S74m1910 668 676 669 325 285 636 478 888 885 578 L931S74m1920 600 596 804 456 816 692 482 1088 738 750 L931S74m1930 816 1206 716 375 555 799 850 1036 941 936 L931S74m1940 812 890 1076 1588 1636 1330 1004 1142 520 798 L931S74m1950 751 836 756 321 535 496 386 464 576 544 L931S74m1960 543 500 625 502 619 495 597 787 606 528 L931S74m1970 656 625 596 645 570 374 356 443 424 812 L931S74m1980 643 620 915 890 782 752 982 875 728 687 L931S74m1990 560 724 687 928 881 1019 864 736 1162 926 L931S74m2000 1165 1542 1047 1195 1088 972 1040 1317 -9999 L931S75m1679 431 L931S75m1680 399 401 1039 2464 1657 1154 1278 1001 248 324 L931S75m1690 667 1373 905 762 878 720 735 872 889 764 L931S75m1700 640 879 588 498 812 977 1055 776 762 723 L931S75m1710 1223 1650 1251 882 932 1050 1017 851 947 833 L931S75m1720 919 710 984 1969 2010 709 1021 556 962 711 L931S75m1730 1011 1258 1276 1184 669 1032 601 774 700 323 L931S75m1740 180 92 241 192 282 334 577 448 849 660 L931S75m1750 509 756 690 778 795 1048 700 833 540 556 L931S75m1760 970 962 484 890 1052 312 463 677 574 612 L931S75m1770 390 387 631 626 1397 1489 1016 643 606 87 L931S75m1780 357 175 494 338 640 738 781 515 693 234 L931S75m1790 230 178 165 218 298 73 0 0 0 99 L931S75m1800 199 574 541 322 53 352 238 305 150 248 L931S75m1810 414 445 257 239 400 294 80 170 257 346 L931S75m1820 194 198 68 589 353 212 285 214 204 373 L931S75m1830 107 286 176 326 322 196 182 170 157 167 L931S75m1840 123 73 312 132 209 302 550 559 444 874 L931S75m1850 607 276 232 343 234 428 586 714 849 636 L931S75m1860 657 843 510 661 747 1008 629 426 641 354 L931S75m1870 811 316 296 794 963 915 452 442 293 437 L931S75m1880 442 676 400 345 365 455 348 564 372 380 L931S75m1890 148 215 336 358 478 424 616 540 518 562 L931S75m1900 434 523 326 427 794 661 672 518 910 0 L931S75m1910 389 401 314 252 96 165 73 407 194 80 L931S75m1920 135 184 211 140 270 198 107 232 530 445 L931S75m1930 417 713 476 355 544 638 362 468 375 278 L931S75m1940 309 367 455 688 752 935 424 607 134 356 L931S75m1950 499 616 975 125 357 244 201 236 364 272 L931S75m1960 161 135 193 167 252 80 159 191 196 151 L931S75m1970 240 100 191 235 271 89 178 136 115 336 L931S75m1980 187 278 590 846 739 448 762 536 699 450 L931S75m1990 260 556 291 508 388 467 343 251 457 336 L931S75m2000 612 888 654 771 733 895 689 497 -9999 L931S76m1808 144 110 L931S76m1810 96 182 84 42 147 140 79 35 127 141 L931S76m1820 108 121 60 248 214 284 223 153 193 165 L931S76m1830 169 56 198 118 208 171 168 131 162 152 L931S76m1840 160 235 228 108 144 191 177 293 120 196 L931S76m1850 148 117 66 111 79 151 164 129 207 131 L931S76m1860 177 145 194 105 250 194 180 188 244 155 L931S76m1870 355 145 143 291 411 365 243 365 186 282 L931S76m1880 239 374 319 221 239 330 242 356 249 272 L931S76m1890 194 81 144 92 80 93 132 77 105 156 L931S76m1900 189 119 87 114 215 156 110 152 260 164 L931S76m1910 134 104 202 127 97 127 88 215 155 104 L931S76m1920 77 153 232 83 233 232 62 164 190 267 L931S76m1930 218 354 243 144 245 264 219 228 261 202 L931S76m1940 149 226 283 308 483 313 274 401 185 262 L931S76m1950 328 358 255 104 238 174 225 207 349 240 L931S76m1960 260 126 322 191 379 290 216 323 305 248 L931S76m1970 378 335 307 244 306 0 202 131 139 159 L931S76m1980 172 231 347 321 351 84 179 197 163 127 L931S76m1990 72 222 140 229 289 271 296 180 470 331 L931S76m2000 457 392 335 473 451 441 483 539 -9999 L931S77m1758 526 460 L931S77m1760 616 854 653 905 1139 580 523 898 800 774 L931S77m1770 505 424 832 783 846 1146 1308 909 914 589 L931S77m1780 962 943 1254 1046 1648 1532 1018 858 889 955 L931S77m1790 1111 949 1094 871 1061 336 384 880 1114 734 L931S77m1800 403 80 363 382 391 309 309 363 354 264 L931S77m1810 201 500 608 182 380 134 164 408 469 428 L931S77m1820 606 410 1200 964 782 725 737 669 777 742 L931S77m1830 250 408 280 504 628 564 546 565 525 498 L931S77m1840 408 79 442 234 378 314 428 376 256 366 L931S77m1850 290 296 294 214 259 329 492 550 834 667 L931S77m1860 786 1074 914 916 1220 972 701 780 918 788 L931S77m1870 1112 276 370 755 902 1186 797 1046 718 972 L931S77m1880 840 1030 948 595 804 1514 1048 1581 1137 1156 L931S77m1890 889 842 1046 1146 992 1046 828 774 868 976 L931S77m1900 874 846 804 688 1093 854 620 639 796 500 L931S77m1910 562 442 606 288 234 362 260 545 452 394 L931S77m1920 342 444 556 398 559 636 316 528 574 674 L931S77m1930 666 1072 878 613 637 733 702 814 860 686 L931S77m1940 560 710 870 1172 1238 1099 864 934 392 547 L931S77m1950 650 873 626 376 491 576 497 699 934 745 L931S77m1960 626 492 694 724 816 604 701 766 716 684 L931S77m1970 699 652 606 585 470 244 232 313 341 609 L931S77m1980 436 623 683 725 536 351 540 622 582 397 L931S77m1990 252 504 535 542 606 700 601 514 778 725 L931S77m2000 682 746 822 710 830 680 728 742 -9999 L931S78m1719 1425 L931S78m1720 1245 818 470 372 594 922 880 876 1066 1244 L931S78m1730 1376 1288 1231 1190 1310 714 537 567 483 858 L931S78m1740 963 548 604 730 658 696 920 1095 877 1242 L931S78m1750 878 794 824 741 777 884 957 936 936 450 L931S78m1760 465 688 698 662 834 528 384 642 957 1243 L931S78m1770 780 420 602 590 564 682 884 950 808 640 L931S78m1780 699 920 866 862 876 986 691 378 436 568 L931S78m1790 560 518 426 549 511 278 94 0 260 394 L931S78m1800 247 267 455 800 794 727 761 1447 735 628 L931S78m1810 368 1046 1014 214 412 148 168 544 625 482 L931S78m1820 486 360 1700 2060 1605 1358 1022 1496 1467 1634 L931S78m1830 532 777 626 872 833 562 485 578 556 776 L931S78m1840 566 243 917 497 607 582 794 740 507 708 L931S78m1850 448 376 286 424 297 432 732 859 1238 1320 L931S78m1860 1582 2094 2052 1672 1820 1250 890 672 710 514 L931S78m1870 1060 376 672 1388 1452 1609 1288 1519 908 770 L931S78m1880 549 893 528 462 469 698 454 988 604 836 L931S78m1890 455 482 736 808 639 656 513 348 352 554 L931S78m1900 613 630 628 704 1210 918 850 724 938 468 L931S78m1910 672 486 804 295 256 504 258 835 547 320 L931S78m1920 246 398 548 272 678 806 282 740 1016 962 L931S78m1930 1012 1649 1856 1117 1054 1407 1122 1274 1164 844 L931S78m1940 608 888 1072 1688 1756 969 742 1004 488 728 L931S78m1950 912 1110 1296 260 488 421 348 494 734 674 L931S78m1960 590 505 610 454 744 478 586 721 723 642 L931S78m1970 776 898 798 745 806 313 468 342 248 532 L931S78m1980 380 462 706 679 594 372 501 530 631 483 L931S78m1990 388 654 524 832 1040 1136 748 693 1220 1034 L931S78m2000 1178 1730 1710 1516 1248 1224 1178 1158 -9999 L931S79m1857 296 438 659 L931S79m1860 1611 1660 955 1024 993 780 685 532 548 303 L931S79m1870 424 263 231 346 511 524 284 478 257 274 L931S79m1880 223 370 225 232 282 331 292 433 432 523 L931S79m1890 632 468 618 596 548 672 515 712 500 790 L931S79m1900 751 998 680 624 716 602 380 470 647 250 L931S79m1910 338 294 444 289 228 293 333 566 430 408 L931S79m1920 279 376 600 334 594 494 216 377 411 589 L931S79m1930 714 952 720 311 336 544 423 462 375 344 L931S79m1940 332 472 361 287 355 325 251 356 102 200 L931S79m1950 274 267 299 194 246 170 154 120 177 208 L931S79m1960 303 160 324 176 303 264 260 317 338 336 L931S79m1970 360 387 339 389 371 224 263 191 187 264 L931S79m1980 218 232 420 436 355 390 638 402 596 317 L931S79m1990 276 496 300 587 519 749 546 294 724 621 L931S79m2000 807 835 488 637 677 541 1077 685 -9999 L931S80m1752 617 467 355 548 404 506 377 367 L931S80m1760 412 511 497 623 740 552 650 726 687 1182 L931S80m1770 660 611 825 610 715 873 634 425 264 233 L931S80m1780 500 563 647 409 751 888 687 450 650 616 L931S80m1790 634 416 390 617 477 150 298 394 558 263 L931S80m1800 260 44 329 375 446 299 266 498 347 290 L931S80m1810 151 321 356 158 127 115 108 278 268 134 L931S80m1820 111 99 399 539 436 449 372 345 379 446 L931S80m1830 163 399 252 474 539 572 388 491 377 298 L931S80m1840 325 94 513 177 302 290 399 450 552 799 L931S80m1850 491 465 207 262 270 446 435 1243 1792 1074 L931S80m1860 849 792 487 528 705 474 446 296 447 247 L931S80m1870 450 248 306 420 672 937 421 551 349 338 L931S80m1880 335 524 412 487 578 667 387 539 323 468 L931S80m1890 283 286 286 337 280 268 164 138 148 281 L931S80m1900 340 279 254 136 324 384 258 358 482 299 L931S80m1910 427 312 394 156 84 283 211 512 330 306 L931S80m1920 221 250 421 208 488 564 191 297 272 294 L931S80m1930 305 334 215 101 132 271 184 310 305 364 L931S80m1940 261 307 356 334 456 258 271 285 130 0 L931S80m1950 348 314 440 325 260 163 66 174 288 216 L931S80m1960 199 75 257 235 346 265 342 273 166 295 L931S80m1970 340 288 193 277 226 98 142 125 103 266 L931S80m1980 0 179 265 286 280 259 164 386 351 292 L931S80m1990 176 307 206 319 273 339 305 190 338 326 L931S80m2000 432 489 386 575 412 335 445 622 -9999 L931S69m1722 863 890 518 1065 807 803 823 1007 L931S69m1730 1635 1123 1138 748 811 943 411 528 497 532 L931S69m1740 787 689 554 578 689 568 646 1033 609 918 L931S69m1750 913 1033 938 1132 784 1123 812 765 909 1002 L931S69m1760 1397 963 654 785 896 770 884 1160 860 1016 L931S69m1770 794 628 824 925 982 1148 841 555 793 394 L931S69m1780 726 798 936 800 1422 1132 1032 1028 1388 826 L931S69m1790 852 536 672 852 866 230 364 472 648 500 L931S69m1800 404 235 329 364 372 416 436 498 425 406 L931S69m1810 400 578 459 338 338 228 432 516 574 400 L931S69m1820 244 453 674 520 582 508 427 398 574 560 L931S69m1830 558 526 441 406 460 416 374 350 366 420 L931S69m1840 419 358 516 368 362 356 481 411 473 440 L931S69m1850 378 363 240 222 0 304 310 358 377 424 L931S69m1860 406 406 326 302 535 422 524 338 379 260 L931S69m1870 428 332 335 468 652 731 456 529 504 466 L931S69m1880 489 551 367 370 444 618 466 482 333 468 L931S69m1890 264 332 350 348 358 440 384 306 342 390 L931S69m1900 364 518 395 365 624 504 435 378 628 339 L931S69m1910 374 355 454 298 270 322 324 576 506 502 L931S69m1920 410 404 413 364 436 406 246 340 435 521 L931S69m1930 489 624 476 238 234 374 318 426 392 336 L931S69m1940 295 417 420 486 663 456 367 578 217 324 L931S69m1950 348 396 310 207 216 220 184 170 316 255 L931S69m1960 266 186 268 172 259 234 264 262 238 266 L931S69m1970 356 292 284 266 296 180 184 240 210 258 L931S69m1980 274 288 392 356 210 267 388 397 406 321 L931S69m1990 220 383 155 396 396 459 362 304 432 347 L931S69m2000 549 628 438 538 350 361 470 476 -9999 L931S66m1705 1221 908 878 1387 1185 L931S66m1710 1507 1625 1948 1388 1114 850 1428 1187 979 1830 L931S66m1720 2352 824 1026 568 1518 1259 1672 1458 1918 2136 L931S66m1730 2182 2152 1516 1441 1705 1074 986 953 1134 1739 L931S66m1740 1478 478 1033 854 968 1047 1401 820 1468 1064 L931S66m1750 940 1240 650 688 675 1009 1118 1366 1032 824 L931S66m1760 856 962 756 1092 812 441 604 807 892 1066 L931S66m1770 484 542 786 984 1212 1471 1548 1236 976 535 L931S66m1780 1204 1124 1184 892 1523 1275 856 867 1308 849 L931S66m1790 1052 906 806 966 1034 482 0 602 886 1177 L931S66m1800 778 447 417 422 487 464 432 724 556 348 L931S66m1810 302 746 813 394 581 343 408 840 777 769 L931S66m1820 824 689 1762 1677 1120 1010 754 815 820 1316 L931S66m1830 764 1498 934 1098 1028 1150 712 840 824 734 L931S66m1840 781 308 1150 792 738 714 669 769 650 814 L931S66m1850 694 683 494 440 446 624 748 876 1159 788 L931S66m1860 1146 914 846 934 1268 1060 1118 990 770 644 L931S66m1870 944 582 785 1160 1344 1866 1186 1296 887 807 L931S66m1880 647 818 566 734 800 1044 666 782 778 719 L931S66m1890 514 393 560 549 530 592 422 386 486 479 L931S66m1900 534 513 488 596 907 832 624 498 903 614 L931S66m1910 748 614 494 327 335 516 546 858 652 477 L931S66m1920 338 378 488 382 520 624 344 398 444 516 L931S66m1930 476 574 452 190 194 371 319 352 415 424 L931S66m1940 317 520 554 650 825 705 602 786 340 574 L931S66m1950 562 598 482 194 410 363 212 192 242 229 L931S66m1960 181 218 380 189 355 328 384 551 560 705 L931S66m1970 873 698 648 484 545 222 235 388 415 704 L931S66m1980 622 621 814 638 461 464 596 558 595 448 L931S66m1990 488 501 304 628 696 865 708 728 892 940 L931S66m2000 1058 1247 1008 878 483 554 744 658 -9999 L931S61m1848 526 482 L931S61m1850 422 408 193 291 269 370 384 557 353 228 L931S61m1860 253 346 237 237 276 220 280 192 207 148 L931S61m1870 279 352 326 346 491 653 458 708 436 681 L931S61m1880 1053 1140 446 488 450 1145 868 998 612 824 L931S61m1890 494 669 764 802 780 1000 859 812 743 683 L931S61m1900 792 796 574 685 975 1080 976 1142 1588 700 L931S61m1910 820 684 897 720 922 1398 935 1503 1126 912 L931S61m1920 1036 854 1399 886 1143 1134 564 1040 1560 1828 L931S61m1930 1569 2154 1822 1126 1248 1926 1591 1895 1767 1574 L931S61m1940 1193 1526 2202 2680 2589 2378 1960 2586 1362 2270 L931S61m1950 2420 2378 2010 1070 1605 1133 1257 1918 3162 2042 L931S61m1960 1588 1240 1963 1424 2002 1331 1359 1770 1720 2145 L931S61m1970 2218 2740 2292 1886 1432 593 620 960 852 1786 L931S61m1980 1702 1852 2744 2653 1820 1193 1564 1774 2316 1964 L931S61m1990 1644 1836 1704 2286 2670 2552 1832 1494 2188 2382 L931S61m2000 2535 2790 2880 2762 1870 1910 1844 1900 -9999 L931S64m1720 570 287 547 349 661 397 368 367 511 659 L931S64m1730 521 649 284 298 340 51 68 106 85 274 L931S64m1740 261 239 289 215 332 274 285 348 496 446 L931S64m1750 284 394 421 346 298 445 256 392 357 315 L931S64m1760 471 576 322 509 660 400 435 527 449 210 L931S64m1770 257 244 370 308 352 638 512 476 591 515 L931S64m1780 856 768 1203 665 1408 974 635 564 735 401 L931S64m1790 608 507 525 596 667 327 474 654 823 610 L931S64m1800 542 237 535 594 836 610 268 637 440 507 L931S64m1810 444 880 826 380 456 196 205 522 990 702 L931S64m1820 774 502 1446 906 872 893 739 934 1086 1397 L931S64m1830 804 1046 682 936 1030 1280 920 1122 654 875 L931S64m1840 820 711 1680 730 1204 764 1439 1307 1047 1040 L931S64m1850 729 713 525 410 329 514 622 780 974 885 L931S64m1860 810 1146 1259 1415 1588 1048 1258 934 962 759 L931S64m1870 1214 736 751 1242 1493 1586 939 1072 738 706 L931S64m1880 707 992 778 645 840 1087 708 1074 614 820 L931S64m1890 736 656 794 671 714 580 444 410 492 660 L931S64m1900 697 807 648 526 782 829 707 709 1006 592 L931S64m1910 640 604 680 253 252 203 218 475 479 460 L931S64m1920 327 506 548 476 645 609 380 637 804 617 L931S64m1930 727 1084 883 480 394 600 537 546 585 582 L931S64m1940 382 574 554 681 824 804 862 1174 514 596 L931S64m1950 823 724 776 432 603 512 424 574 476 486 L931S64m1960 382 301 470 372 439 423 404 476 342 266 L931S64m1970 368 333 301 364 355 175 178 182 142 262 L931S64m1980 206 268 414 228 272 318 291 370 292 190 L931S64m1990 149 317 223 350 382 472 335 252 464 394 L931S64m2000 424 765 632 657 551 479 652 662 -9999 L931S65m1934 1082 988 938 879 1008 1194 L931S65m1940 562 1222 1560 1481 1590 1637 1640 2121 952 1858 L931S65m1950 1759 1558 1449 850 1778 1448 1150 1196 2146 1823 L931S65m1960 2135 1346 1836 1526 1892 1898 1940 1916 1354 1543 L931S65m1970 1871 1940 1690 1834 1382 486 770 912 949 1373 L931S65m1980 1072 1351 2236 1854 1520 1436 1814 1431 1836 1440 L931S65m1990 1354 1526 1220 1659 1570 1706 1282 1326 2000 1426 L931S65m2000 1792 1896 1986 2171 1507 1812 1986 2293 -9999 L931S67m1779 398 L931S67m1780 824 593 580 479 1014 955 826 991 1281 726 L931S67m1790 742 451 486 772 895 404 498 556 838 705 L931S67m1800 625 199 504 586 531 705 575 1137 1164 754 L931S67m1810 762 1187 1341 548 781 376 534 1146 1136 996 L931S67m1820 1028 698 1570 1838 1182 1134 921 1047 1110 1890 L931S67m1830 1046 1586 896 1310 1626 1680 978 1086 1049 1269 L931S67m1840 1386 670 1766 811 1175 1146 1650 1760 1335 1550 L931S67m1850 1084 840 638 530 548 1078 1402 1646 2048 1190 L931S67m1860 1402 1305 1402 1297 1772 1413 1693 1576 1138 1078 L931S67m1870 1194 801 1090 1690 2526 2743 1588 1978 1282 1137 L931S67m1880 841 1070 550 752 846 898 738 1046 678 1168 L931S67m1890 836 1080 1181 1116 1126 658 290 266 358 494 L931S67m1900 533 642 603 681 1470 1306 868 645 1072 973 L931S67m1910 1000 840 932 502 558 777 692 1464 1278 919 L931S67m1920 648 956 1040 544 958 990 508 832 1197 1119 L931S67m1930 1155 1372 1126 582 524 954 874 994 944 958 L931S67m1940 928 1168 1306 1866 2070 1572 1309 1250 598 906 L931S67m1950 1190 1214 1388 671 920 743 458 365 483 396 L931S67m1960 403 304 610 562 872 638 776 1012 916 970 L931S67m1970 1160 1148 922 1000 1028 343 512 504 609 847 L931S67m1980 754 764 1238 1067 1020 832 1126 1012 1411 957 L931S67m1990 792 900 599 890 939 1256 814 667 1013 908 L931S67m2000 1164 1307 1199 1196 956 963 1347 1126 -9999 L931S68m1767 926 1008 988 L931S68m1770 587 656 742 740 769 816 267 420 522 386 L931S68m1780 460 546 578 406 842 882 748 932 1246 602 L931S68m1790 711 479 218 357 375 221 227 263 391 384 L931S68m1800 330 153 450 540 443 622 451 786 644 449 L931S68m1810 424 791 901 455 513 401 330 779 734 598 L931S68m1820 590 333 1714 1251 800 1110 852 826 976 1188 L931S68m1830 639 946 649 1203 1314 970 600 886 788 818 L931S68m1840 957 382 1090 470 792 594 1134 1388 1018 798 L931S68m1850 700 628 392 430 361 530 581 722 1024 938 L931S68m1860 1263 588 971 853 1141 1182 1010 771 543 548 L931S68m1870 933 569 700 1194 1424 1729 926 1116 854 989 L931S68m1880 770 1002 498 462 460 842 666 881 682 588 L931S68m1890 419 437 610 656 760 756 631 426 564 763 L931S68m1900 810 784 673 644 1219 923 678 781 1140 629 L931S68m1910 534 730 760 607 393 454 402 1224 996 996 L931S68m1920 705 703 914 470 886 944 428 798 803 1258 L931S68m1930 1093 1236 1032 469 503 808 666 750 888 946 L931S68m1940 628 853 1052 1592 1611 842 742 1002 474 549 L931S68m1950 594 728 766 288 488 511 296 336 896 664 L931S68m1960 671 342 704 502 757 454 563 682 676 803 L931S68m1970 961 804 817 808 734 224 410 578 358 894 L931S68m1980 608 886 998 791 696 623 1259 1132 1195 692 L931S68m1990 562 820 463 888 839 1090 906 824 1272 1034 L931S68m2000 1132 1535 1079 1002 906 1054 926 792 -9999 L922G02M1871 2252 1620 1509 1988 2667 2037 2011 1837 1320 L922G02M1880 1253 1527 1556 1281 1430 1691 1815 3032 2715 2476 L922G02M1890 2160 2089 2330 2344 2249 2596 2740 2565 2331 3012 L922G02M1900 2666 2804 2290 2718 3679 1978 2882 2974 2970 2086 L922G02M1910 2544 2762 2498 1616 2064 2548 2334 3276 2820 2206 L922G02M1920 2308 2766 2932 1676 2744 2718 1872 2212 2430 2409 L922G02M1930 2206 3227 2762 2204 2486 2865 1959 2437 2286 1958 L922G02M1940 1548 1863 1862 1626 1702 1908 1722 2241 1352 1880 L922G02M1950 2365 2358 1778 1165 1037 1232 787 924 1535 1512 L922G02M1960 1357 1584 1800 1556 1654 1226 1227 1660 1379 1639 L922G02M1970 1404 1017 1290 1076 1118 1064 950 823 800 1291 L922G02M1980 928 1021 1390 1280 1260 1074 1962 1570 1602 1288 L922G02M1990 1049 1626 1718 1824 1878 1892 1315 1115 1962 1675 L922G02M2000 1906 2316 1398 1630 1590 1514 1579 -9999 L922G03M1868 1618 1790 L922G03M1870 2226 1399 768 1297 2168 2514 2878 2311 2594 2099 L922G03M1880 1767 2007 1462 1389 1385 2544 1943 3073 2201 2325 L922G03M1890 1553 1451 1736 1502 1658 1959 1916 1683 1814 1443 L922G03M1900 1156 1112 990 1454 2299 2190 1876 1901 1889 1286 L922G03M1910 1370 1892 2156 1454 1768 2701 1868 3416 2471 2560 L922G03M1920 2924 3077 3034 2780 2466 2690 1445 1396 1542 1638 L922G03M1930 1623 2374 2153 1596 2336 2283 1976 2402 1735 1446 L922G03M1940 1306 1914 1620 1686 1748 1929 1580 1938 1446 1939 L922G03M1950 2414 2549 2465 1380 1046 1106 861 510 1080 1054 L922G03M1960 892 788 864 890 734 524 572 862 678 798 L922G03M1970 818 648 664 554 464 436 476 422 410 930 L922G03M1980 704 1120 1608 1430 1166 954 1636 1500 1352 812 L922G03M1990 492 554 1234 1358 1375 1504 1168 915 1518 1750 L922G03M2000 1955 2492 1586 1685 1594 1980 1682 -9999 L922G05M1902 3083 3567 4192 3550 3184 3133 4093 3145 L922G05M1910 4364 3190 3593 1035 2252 3540 2556 3525 1471 1753 L922G05M1920 1914 1935 2849 1962 2510 3093 1654 2068 2463 2190 L922G05M1930 2533 3699 2167 2165 3071 3814 2616 3611 3186 2846 L922G05M1940 2328 3219 3526 4067 3900 3262 2564 2585 1720 1850 L922G05M1950 2892 3136 2476 1090 1481 1399 916 1091 2180 2405 L922G05M1960 2359 2456 3152 2571 1960 1456 1516 1838 1077 1410 L922G05M1970 1283 784 960 718 635 876 1188 1094 1336 2648 L922G05M1980 1972 2470 2790 2099 2013 1346 2353 1728 1652 1330 L922G05M1990 1152 1398 1468 1420 1515 1666 1059 436 1068 1282 L922G05M2000 1534 1997 1393 1558 1394 1310 1840 -9999 L922G07M1813 509 754 288 366 696 1805 1513 L922G07M1820 1622 427 2880 2552 2146 2505 1441 1389 1230 1027 L922G07M1830 568 791 542 978 2174 2271 1756 1013 860 1379 L922G07M1840 1007 1422 3108 1876 3248 3290 3660 4364 1494 1591 L922G07M1850 1200 647 995 1029 855 938 1196 1707 2760 2106 L922G07M1860 1109 1997 3042 3182 2160 3271 4007 3953 4062 2055 L922G07M1870 4178 1530 1577 1460 2190 1641 1716 1511 1361 1178 L922G07M1880 1810 1753 2989 1979 1476 3094 2034 3022 2224 2727 L922G07M1890 1628 886 926 833 704 760 783 653 504 552 L922G07M1900 410 428 432 418 746 696 683 660 866 491 L922G07M1910 928 1477 1270 472 432 463 406 938 772 735 L922G07M1920 1122 2017 2702 1496 2494 2666 944 1182 1380 1399 L922G07M1930 1840 3282 2744 1954 1501 1473 1076 1206 882 808 L922G07M1940 664 1225 1178 850 1082 1642 1283 2220 455 626 L922G07M1950 881 784 730 213 326 336 185 207 451 484 L922G07M1960 450 526 722 664 698 688 832 1078 469 799 L922G07M1970 819 700 617 536 430 454 350 476 350 824 L922G07M1980 706 746 1153 1032 836 1000 1510 1096 1012 598 L922G07M1990 336 544 574 561 620 806 524 555 939 1069 L922G07M2000 1810 1966 742 810 428 732 576 -9999 L922G09M1775 1068 1222 1068 759 702 L922G09M1780 392 554 680 1167 1018 2196 1511 1396 1492 1773 L922G09M1790 967 913 372 307 423 775 366 516 437 565 L922G09M1800 297 147 154 100 192 162 237 223 174 263 L922G09M1810 218 420 405 180 224 151 127 328 464 425 L922G09M1820 536 279 1033 800 651 654 542 388 463 440 L922G09M1830 120 401 206 505 500 464 368 466 350 423 L922G09M1840 311 386 778 546 868 839 1309 1395 1105 1491 L922G09M1850 1395 769 933 875 598 705 705 704 872 611 L922G09M1860 631 936 896 945 945 907 1200 1225 1468 839 L922G09M1870 968 798 842 1651 1615 1118 563 713 507 747 L922G09M1880 976 1380 583 428 713 776 515 840 680 1064 L922G09M1890 815 934 1270 1150 912 1393 1892 1234 1055 981 L922G09M1900 959 1083 813 804 1269 1682 1186 1142 1426 818 L922G09M1910 1264 1347 1588 788 772 792 837 1397 1230 1380 L922G09M1920 1906 2786 2524 2266 2059 1824 881 1144 1379 1396 L922G09M1930 1535 2170 1305 982 1250 2270 1472 2218 1701 1417 L922G09M1940 1007 1814 1392 1648 2078 2488 2968 3220 1464 1854 L922G09M1950 1914 1140 1157 600 842 941 666 856 1422 1394 L922G09M1960 1085 1266 1793 1380 1408 1120 1228 1717 1272 1298 L922G09M1970 1254 1044 1041 770 727 474 772 572 602 976 L922G09M1980 678 905 1096 1308 1362 1083 1650 1456 1163 1006 L922G09M1990 844 1225 1043 1236 1506 1703 966 794 1142 1421 L922G09M2000 1506 1749 1146 1483 1293 1616 2050 -9999 L922G11M1729 1156 L922G11M1730 1569 1637 3047 2461 2003 2075 1870 2153 2006 2740 L922G11M1740 3866 2346 1506 1968 1406 2034 1734 1859 1567 2726 L922G11M1750 2196 1681 1990 1768 1954 2238 2482 1968 1833 696 L922G11M1760 784 1570 2232 1904 1634 1502 732 1006 1504 1306 L922G11M1770 1220 792 827 1106 1274 1121 1832 1476 838 1208 L922G11M1780 776 798 572 1060 700 1200 848 998 700 972 L922G11M1790 1004 1100 1049 734 686 908 304 480 437 595 L922G11M1800 430 412 259 181 224 73 174 170 196 126 L922G11M1810 134 273 364 136 138 93 114 166 138 202 L922G11M1820 155 136 548 534 516 405 359 526 564 540 L922G11M1830 174 364 246 389 480 452 492 376 276 410 L922G11M1840 394 636 1292 797 1252 1748 2305 2688 1547 1388 L922G11M1850 1080 557 511 586 516 627 764 820 1035 694 L922G11M1860 642 554 786 675 592 881 1192 1322 2037 1044 L922G11M1870 1364 1039 1384 1249 1017 654 650 1946 1908 2312 L922G11M1880 2200 1960 918 414 300 600 538 1524 1859 2535 L922G11M1890 1452 928 892 774 674 892 1380 1220 1090 980 L922G11M1900 840 907 760 1501 3458 2754 1584 1041 1848 1081 L922G11M1910 1463 1085 1144 444 590 643 680 1402 1308 1222 L922G11M1920 1036 1038 1566 865 1250 1375 684 793 1056 1463 L922G11M1930 1375 2082 1352 734 950 1115 978 1394 1114 701 L922G11M1940 555 864 982 985 1666 1342 1166 1526 668 528 L922G11M1950 780 635 470 161 211 199 140 215 326 375 L922G11M1960 396 366 452 482 548 394 376 543 472 759 L922G11M1970 713 555 578 388 334 288 383 326 350 648 L922G11M1980 532 734 1046 862 899 796 1414 1121 1215 845 L922G11M1990 652 736 924 1132 1306 1244 1013 792 1036 1312 L922G11M2000 1954 2830 1878 1601 962 872 1133 -9999 L922G12M1865 1843 1063 1202 1944 924 L922G12M1870 1868 1568 2249 2262 3261 3302 2941 2820 2494 2348 L922G12M1880 2088 2674 2318 2074 2068 3683 3240 3800 2831 3534 L922G12M1890 2428 2271 2397 2014 2497 2319 2666 3012 3162 2714 L922G12M1900 2746 3286 2420 2220 2998 2502 2152 2346 2699 1945 L922G12M1910 2018 1676 1586 944 1278 1208 1176 2184 1542 1770 L922G12M1920 2395 2628 2032 1791 1874 1520 1054 1349 1216 762 L922G12M1930 1026 1474 766 554 892 1221 922 1306 1454 1584 L922G12M1940 1269 1480 1346 1571 1782 1890 1382 1983 1060 1615 L922G12M1950 1250 1430 982 633 626 676 548 548 1050 1126 L922G12M1960 1192 1034 1040 953 1089 992 1220 1520 1224 1767 L922G12M1970 1618 1361 1301 1056 870 766 843 971 866 1090 L922G12M1980 731 987 1485 1166 1150 1124 1625 1350 1116 938 L922G12M1990 839 805 836 1117 1050 868 709 734 1198 881 L922G12M2000 1046 1360 766 1277 1232 1479 1390 -9999 L922G13M1765 1752 912 1085 1328 1171 L922G13M1770 1407 1496 1931 1697 2125 1341 1401 1725 1198 1590 L922G13M1780 1118 972 1033 1280 1064 1974 1170 1224 1080 1544 L922G13M1790 1249 1210 920 933 794 913 244 560 718 1116 L922G13M1800 741 475 349 288 510 546 495 564 500 657 L922G13M1810 465 1002 868 256 292 341 125 428 657 874 L922G13M1820 792 84 1208 747 454 598 455 664 860 722 L922G13M1830 144 350 310 688 790 952 884 781 500 523 L922G13M1840 176 338 720 521 826 814 1494 1762 1032 1030 L922G13M1850 712 486 276 456 644 700 936 1438 2105 1987 L922G13M1860 1782 2336 2102 1762 1692 1468 1542 1127 1672 1101 L922G13M1870 1928 688 812 1490 2009 1942 1470 1494 1083 1106 L922G13M1880 890 1690 1044 684 646 1454 1130 2134 1381 1610 L922G13M1890 736 667 1162 792 780 588 834 646 920 684 L922G13M1900 957 900 774 748 1181 1049 1043 1040 1428 828 L922G13M1910 1104 938 1210 768 774 880 574 1537 1152 1340 L922G13M1920 1122 1660 2088 968 1294 1476 750 798 800 952 L922G13M1930 1283 1476 1090 564 768 1236 1106 1448 957 894 L922G13M1940 570 944 992 926 1138 1004 963 1110 864 839 L922G13M1950 1173 1194 939 427 478 519 320 258 683 560 L922G13M1960 752 393 793 527 649 490 672 668 562 827 L922G13M1970 720 428 679 495 476 454 544 656 526 986 L922G13M1980 443 673 1044 941 949 863 1278 1043 912 450 L922G13M1990 430 324 736 1081 1106 998 792 596 1005 1036 L922G13M2000 1000 1160 792 1393 1557 1388 1256 -9999 L922G14M1790 1751 1535 1670 1217 1197 1482 1247 1507 1751 1836 L922G14M1800 1163 895 392 358 660 787 704 1188 1188 1243 L922G14M1810 1010 1780 1882 832 941 739 674 1250 1780 1626 L922G14M1820 1698 1157 2325 2051 1421 1831 1779 1983 1752 1540 L922G14M1830 915 1184 982 1853 2163 1681 1590 1706 1289 1639 L922G14M1840 1367 1094 2224 1321 1476 1287 1855 2062 1371 1317 L922G14M1850 923 1144 992 1198 1091 1375 1953 2472 2632 2256 L922G14M1860 1586 1882 1563 2429 1954 2281 2194 1513 2089 1620 L922G14M1870 2052 1459 2018 2815 2524 2116 1752 2206 2547 2986 L922G14M1880 3540 3252 1434 906 1058 1812 1542 2188 1490 2230 L922G14M1890 1964 2052 2023 1432 1625 1659 1822 1250 1404 1977 L922G14M1900 1774 2096 1756 1852 3366 3006 1972 1492 1768 1160 L922G14M1910 1940 2445 2913 1574 1394 1820 1535 3046 2057 1526 L922G14M1920 2065 2632 2534 1825 1712 1054 740 1083 1134 1086 L922G14M1930 1221 1480 1104 747 1020 1268 806 1274 1074 1120 L922G14M1940 840 1158 1175 1358 1652 1790 1321 1602 761 1042 L922G14M1950 1194 1341 960 616 592 616 387 324 994 910 L922G14M1960 720 886 938 873 888 606 676 807 608 872 L922G14M1970 872 933 916 876 890 838 450 770 599 1093 L922G14M1980 856 1074 1526 1167 889 1046 1678 1236 1160 674 L922G14M1990 691 920 1136 1052 1047 980 718 644 754 671 L922G14M2000 1042 1544 1066 1026 815 864 936 -9999 L922G15M1827 957 1037 1049 L922G15M1830 937 1136 1758 2556 2612 2134 1670 1898 1262 1560 L922G15M1840 1034 1257 2088 1736 2277 2158 2372 2766 1678 1991 L922G15M1850 1934 1586 1694 2317 2099 2120 2754 2629 3370 2154 L922G15M1860 2690 3741 2915 2829 3462 3252 2734 2078 3133 1963 L922G15M1870 2816 1253 1718 2432 3508 2806 2068 2032 1793 2186 L922G15M1880 2011 2413 1261 834 1048 1830 1499 1979 1510 1673 L922G15M1890 1440 1500 1533 1296 1010 1116 1391 1374 1491 1556 L922G15M1900 1406 2066 1590 1445 2536 2179 2220 1982 2397 1526 L922G15M1910 2096 2022 2240 1605 1524 2224 1612 2597 1996 1701 L922G15M1920 1846 2113 2396 1790 2053 1854 1060 1301 1124 1000 L922G15M1930 1218 1464 1283 624 936 1482 1223 1720 1329 1278 L922G15M1940 1148 1332 1438 1366 1306 1665 1812 2370 1024 968 L922G15M1950 1222 1188 818 585 748 756 557 624 856 926 L922G15M1960 848 772 1018 768 878 650 617 661 594 603 L922G15M1970 680 533 628 605 384 434 246 432 324 592 L922G15M1980 402 588 639 615 329 431 673 650 540 520 L922G15M1990 430 570 606 698 704 567 428 251 490 505 L922G15M2000 640 797 548 630 640 684 658 -9999 L922G16M1800 444 772 744 741 423 116 292 176 206 208 L922G16M1810 209 148 229 292 212 116 130 128 217 256 L922G16M1820 255 198 352 298 426 400 388 530 480 454 L922G16M1830 274 470 384 594 892 857 899 744 630 675 L922G16M1840 824 780 1042 1200 1218 1559 1366 1775 1697 1402 L922G16M1850 1282 918 736 766 718 726 964 2246 1804 1229 L922G16M1860 1202 1351 1154 1366 1033 1217 1422 979 1183 576 L922G16M1870 1046 640 799 1368 2202 2312 2088 1846 1566 1564 L922G16M1880 1576 1426 532 442 374 778 497 749 711 1020 L922G16M1890 680 850 848 936 810 660 848 559 501 500 L922G16M1900 470 510 462 422 794 647 770 660 917 500 L922G16M1910 776 586 858 476 488 621 428 1086 872 822 L922G16M1920 848 1207 1550 580 797 706 350 441 616 650 L922G16M1930 722 914 750 544 638 1142 900 1087 878 706 L922G16M1940 625 898 990 904 956 856 1146 1523 541 741 L922G16M1950 903 934 711 346 351 398 240 260 364 410 L922G16M1960 444 391 528 391 530 546 576 1010 643 941 L922G16M1970 886 689 721 579 485 411 498 486 289 546 L922G16M1980 384 578 798 866 936 628 806 838 858 566 L922G16M1990 460 486 754 708 682 710 494 374 609 612 L922G16M2000 797 836 623 670 661 810 1107 -9999 L922G17M1903 1401 2723 2287 2260 3149 3884 2660 L922G17M1910 2868 2984 3175 1732 2719 4396 3296 4620 2732 2566 L922G17M1920 2756 3502 3868 3422 3822 3656 2336 3059 2588 2076 L922G17M1930 2348 3887 2474 1822 2610 3328 2336 3186 3460 2965 L922G17M1940 2630 3556 4168 4972 5002 4056 3154 2773 1235 2368 L922G17M1950 3062 2579 2074 1424 1022 1220 1290 1364 2735 2968 L922G17M1960 2842 2524 3083 2966 3080 2172 2142 2520 1462 1644 L922G17M1970 1586 1596 2010 1694 1498 1176 1563 1368 1329 2416 L922G17M1980 1456 1748 2334 2320 2262 1970 3038 2196 2134 1906 L922G17M1990 1628 1820 1594 1888 2531 2560 1466 1192 2104 2126 L922G17M2000 2309 3119 1706 1822 1708 1842 1607 -9999 L922G18M1897 1576 1822 2193 L922G18M1900 1862 2828 1656 1820 2722 2368 1864 1724 2558 1950 L922G18M1910 2572 2202 2624 1431 1894 2680 2504 4981 3519 2540 L922G18M1920 2232 2024 2296 1993 2372 2746 1842 2289 2538 2394 L922G18M1930 2757 3631 2062 1672 2402 3109 2386 2602 2373 2378 L922G18M1940 1584 2043 2152 2450 2702 2974 3285 4320 1935 2144 L922G18M1950 2952 2636 1990 1384 1022 1124 1054 1239 2707 2758 L922G18M1960 2144 1686 2384 2080 2174 1994 1975 2964 1683 2100 L922G18M1970 1844 2138 1965 1715 1659 1313 1330 1443 1710 2806 L922G18M1980 2368 2383 2828 2098 2224 1882 2610 2302 2392 1960 L922G18M1990 1371 1676 2277 1972 2266 2070 1435 970 1821 2278 L922G18M2000 2488 3034 1728 1768 1862 1896 1996 -9999 L922G01M1780 1922 1794 2342 1681 1934 1338 1357 1016 1677 1858 L922G01M1790 1596 2002 1342 1820 1834 621 770 1612 1342 1017 L922G01M1800 1234 1068 1646 1876 1628 858 710 932 1058 1079 L922G01M1810 738 1482 1498 806 760 938 1178 1421 1553 1414 L922G01M1820 1437 566 2061 2019 1090 1081 922 908 757 778 L922G01M1830 132 530 376 765 903 1338 1198 1233 1023 1068 L922G01M1840 634 746 1926 785 1207 1479 2060 2448 921 1326 L922G01M1850 1142 1443 1888 1856 1194 1282 1854 1864 2184 2760 L922G01M1860 2326 2509 2145 1585 1467 1967 1734 1260 1593 980 L922G01M1870 2168 986 1340 2024 2296 2066 1338 1148 1220 1024 L922G01M1880 802 1356 1074 1072 1172 1734 1398 1340 800 1082 L922G01M1890 842 862 1038 1089 1156 1362 1491 1208 1188 1258 L922G01M1900 1426 1162 1346 1239 1908 1352 1426 2182 2403 1376 L922G01M1910 1270 1066 1752 1291 1912 2664 2050 2958 1374 867 L922G01M1920 786 1329 1712 802 1259 1100 511 960 856 928 L922G01M1930 1161 1197 626 502 684 1256 984 984 1103 1034 L922G01M1940 726 837 902 800 1040 1090 938 1244 824 1334 L922G01M1950 1727 2080 1845 904 674 686 584 306 719 722 L922G01M1960 740 700 1101 1067 1374 615 694 874 857 1062 L922G01M1970 1063 687 830 800 578 581 822 778 671 902 L922G01M1980 596 883 1216 974 1140 796 1232 1171 1146 951 L922G01M1990 722 666 606 880 956 952 873 605 1040 1006 L922G01M2000 1254 1146 1072 1349 1160 1274 1150 -9999 L922G02M1853 2101 1499 1640 2096 2633 2798 2636 L922G02M1860 1788 2405 2502 1958 1888 2370 1863 1997 2173 2559 L922G02M1870 3455 1961 2264 2650 2230 2044 2328 2422 2298 2217 L922G02M1880 2111 2386 1816 1860 2602 3170 2604 2998 1750 2215 L922G02M1890 1870 1901 2944 2448 2718 2600 2940 2122 2120 1997 L922G02M1900 2056 2330 1932 2018 3394 2826 2769 3102 3142 2142 L922G02M1910 1964 2424 2412 1306 1840 1968 1694 3000 2252 2232 L922G02M1920 2373 2975 2609 1517 2089 2046 1286 1993 2238 2240 L922G02M1930 2476 2622 1230 1456 1564 2742 2014 1992 1048 768 L922G02M1940 627 998 1113 1465 1860 2089 1700 1832 1055 1741 L922G02M1950 2060 2164 2167 986 1060 1175 1006 903 1464 1512 L922G02M1960 1292 1222 1578 1251 1826 1801 1516 1856 1678 2050 L922G02M1970 1783 1622 1562 1331 1361 978 996 998 886 1360 L922G02M1980 1208 1530 1916 1446 1464 1095 1244 1172 1428 1407 L922G02M1990 1348 1148 1302 1100 998 1444 1058 644 1062 1054 L922G02M2000 1169 1256 1348 1346 968 1086 1067 -9999 L922G05M1902 2035 2200 2931 1951 1912 2287 2930 2480 L922G05M1910 2096 2791 2920 2043 3113 3935 3150 4084 1628 2378 L922G05M1920 1847 2055 2193 2137 3090 2601 1475 1676 2192 2284 L922G05M1930 2132 2420 1584 1830 1762 2955 2202 3287 3569 2817 L922G05M1940 2688 3275 2902 2605 2882 3292 1741 2009 1206 1801 L922G05M1950 1532 1440 1114 948 1122 1036 1016 876 1359 1499 L922G05M1960 1204 1419 1798 1603 2499 2013 1718 1980 1090 1522 L922G05M1970 1618 1448 1433 1504 1512 1195 1354 1208 1138 1508 L922G05M1980 1166 1658 1994 1632 1734 1254 2013 1726 1798 1588 L922G05M1990 1646 1513 1340 1638 1866 1584 1280 1164 2174 1318 L922G05M2000 1794 1960 1740 2214 1576 1832 1659 -9999 L922G06M1830 234 168 74 103 142 164 142 196 237 275 L922G06M1840 198 553 1663 884 1618 1464 1908 2308 1329 1486 L922G06M1850 976 904 1237 1176 873 1190 1390 1475 1850 1741 L922G06M1860 1352 1469 1118 878 1052 1286 1054 866 914 650 L922G06M1870 1798 740 1020 1278 1392 1592 1353 1228 1082 779 L922G06M1880 842 1332 978 1018 931 1847 1136 1575 782 1240 L922G06M1890 809 882 1046 891 1212 1088 1489 1136 1223 1968 L922G06M1900 1866 1540 1118 1128 1902 1406 1503 2090 2591 1246 L922G06M1910 1200 1165 1318 626 996 1486 1066 1702 966 790 L922G06M1920 676 976 1056 464 950 602 338 474 539 486 L922G06M1930 736 700 273 224 310 606 456 582 639 482 L922G06M1940 436 577 441 330 406 356 314 440 194 326 L922G06M1950 593 468 428 168 270 344 192 192 322 366 L922G06M1960 324 250 423 298 392 288 354 428 304 465 L922G06M1970 452 312 341 383 284 307 338 311 226 417 L922G06M1980 201 378 546 484 468 313 492 417 424 348 L922G06M1990 328 370 433 451 438 423 361 263 466 516 L922G06M2000 489 456 507 640 472 536 513 -9999 L922G07M1898 1156 1290 L922G07M1900 1464 866 951 846 1217 1049 1163 1271 1768 1502 L922G07M1910 1248 783 1487 1484 1844 1685 1340 1212 1633 1271 L922G07M1920 1239 2283 2908 1673 2574 3156 1903 2185 2598 2704 L922G07M1930 2754 2926 1358 1342 2113 2937 2524 2969 2464 2239 L922G07M1940 1576 2471 2230 2556 2798 3282 2022 3236 1290 3014 L922G07M1950 3372 2583 2026 1084 1004 1234 1181 625 1627 1819 L922G07M1960 1764 1757 2388 1762 2226 1281 1244 1892 1492 2081 L922G07M1970 2263 1633 1424 1434 1354 1696 2174 1916 1414 2449 L922G07M1980 1738 2667 3132 2844 3075 2333 2686 1948 2754 2498 L922G07M1990 2219 1876 2029 2489 2854 2596 2231 1182 1684 1920 L922G07M2000 2483 3352 3073 3426 2230 2298 2086 -9999 L922G08M1889 1488 L922G08M1890 1078 1186 1972 1655 2146 2194 2447 2359 2391 4079 L922G08M1900 3488 3380 1842 2399 3102 3379 2512 2560 2076 1922 L922G08M1910 1994 1882 1602 1584 2207 2383 2132 2117 1670 1314 L922G08M1920 1684 1362 1324 1233 1617 1110 702 1232 1348 1571 L922G08M1930 1556 1868 1162 1100 1473 1772 1398 1708 1706 1308 L922G08M1940 1401 1416 1380 1338 1668 1476 1418 1875 791 1778 L922G08M1950 2488 2556 2246 910 936 878 806 270 959 886 L922G08M1960 1015 913 1374 1423 1983 1460 1633 1891 1320 1458 L922G08M1970 1394 1216 1118 1251 1218 1463 1598 1574 1339 1870 L922G08M1980 980 1156 1710 1561 1586 1262 1751 1394 1304 1252 L922G08M1990 1020 978 1182 1664 1706 1758 1240 1078 1782 1599 L922G08M2000 1668 1938 1847 2422 1842 2350 2038 -9999 L922G09M1817 2349 2824 2367 L922G09M1820 2158 695 3020 2838 1976 2017 1741 2149 2186 1459 L922G09M1830 1078 822 955 1996 2824 3135 1538 1412 2234 2634 L922G09M1840 1399 2057 3218 2030 3590 2614 2202 3876 2109 2277 L922G09M1850 1394 1224 1858 1524 1272 1696 2114 1905 2732 2516 L922G09M1860 1876 2037 2330 2208 1449 1742 1928 1168 1738 1208 L922G09M1870 1853 1389 2048 2336 1582 1341 1569 976 1242 1165 L922G09M1880 1273 1770 1374 1281 1832 2444 1860 2132 1005 1288 L922G09M1890 962 1078 1518 1424 1366 1506 1861 1093 1328 1224 L922G09M1900 1243 1102 839 686 1450 1016 1034 1288 1657 1083 L922G09M1910 1128 1506 1688 672 872 918 759 1607 864 762 L922G09M1920 680 676 802 234 616 560 398 766 740 819 L922G09M1930 1162 1210 507 624 949 1546 987 1338 796 665 L922G09M1940 680 896 650 618 910 722 612 808 534 668 L922G09M1950 655 776 656 210 281 298 260 123 212 286 L922G09M1960 290 255 377 373 555 408 414 459 326 436 L922G09M1970 647 424 476 472 449 465 499 450 325 382 L922G09M1980 335 290 590 321 376 322 564 470 462 424 L922G09M1990 378 370 436 562 416 502 424 380 554 338 L922G09M2000 500 504 509 666 714 638 622 -9999 L922G10M1885 2283 1731 1642 1228 2379 L922G10M1890 1084 770 914 871 692 932 1166 1196 1208 1703 L922G10M1900 1776 2000 1560 1264 1604 2047 1940 2275 2468 1874 L922G10M1910 1890 1820 1926 1300 1828 2151 1968 2566 1722 1705 L922G10M1920 1513 1588 1908 1207 1600 1650 1332 1622 1532 1252 L922G10M1930 1568 1720 782 790 1222 2085 1615 1974 1771 1500 L922G10M1940 1418 1626 1480 1648 1975 1904 1116 1427 878 1485 L922G10M1950 1518 1490 1524 508 566 726 572 375 737 844 L922G10M1960 928 702 1038 1212 1127 817 896 992 837 891 L922G10M1970 988 772 853 877 735 760 635 785 625 978 L922G10M1980 706 1062 1068 824 874 776 966 832 540 570 L922G10M1990 716 732 706 876 916 1016 836 664 993 740 L922G10M2000 1110 1268 842 1115 893 997 699 -9999 L922G11M1765 1042 2064 2268 1811 2072 L922G11M1770 2126 2016 2018 2606 2578 2218 2375 2003 2914 1568 L922G11M1780 2290 2062 2269 1519 2505 1378 1434 1650 1958 1939 L922G11M1790 1816 1794 1432 1642 2130 1182 1239 1458 1296 1026 L922G11M1800 990 1004 1423 1260 1306 1133 1008 1394 1292 1214 L922G11M1810 660 1786 1506 728 1081 855 862 1350 1589 2000 L922G11M1820 1992 247 1622 1506 1190 1317 1165 1197 1062 1005 L922G11M1830 281 544 365 792 1229 1248 931 732 656 860 L922G11M1840 655 374 994 538 988 1091 1402 2201 1056 1073 L922G11M1850 759 686 954 1484 1240 1576 1998 2052 2006 1632 L922G11M1860 1298 1344 1090 958 1092 1215 1298 1038 891 794 L922G11M1870 1460 773 762 1250 1586 1328 1046 940 657 702 L922G11M1880 479 973 816 945 687 1316 1057 1228 620 781 L922G11M1890 398 470 732 683 886 860 1146 1073 951 950 L922G11M1900 925 990 844 678 1131 845 676 798 949 550 L922G11M1910 806 836 1106 660 771 836 588 1192 631 722 L922G11M1920 674 640 1164 436 1105 844 338 598 744 859 L922G11M1930 964 1087 533 444 501 915 848 990 910 600 L922G11M1940 427 645 502 577 707 683 641 775 484 752 L922G11M1950 814 1002 813 442 470 384 252 186 357 307 L922G11M1960 415 279 564 382 670 526 432 432 392 442 L922G11M1970 582 294 420 432 356 225 312 360 316 440 L922G11M1980 218 349 490 485 522 392 571 627 704 706 L922G11M1990 518 632 604 827 757 825 662 445 737 718 L922G11M2000 878 905 916 1076 1042 1104 676 -9999 L922G12M1900 2511 2338 1873 2585 2587 2155 2060 3503 2800 2751 L922G12M1910 3347 2739 2292 3073 3303 3220 3595 3359 2330 1852 L922G12M1920 1834 2702 2614 2346 1987 1482 1198 1704 2110 2202 L922G12M1930 1789 1879 1012 998 1411 2120 1824 2356 2484 1891 L922G12M1940 1447 1872 1640 1978 1797 1752 1818 2348 946 1780 L922G12M1950 2672 2852 1868 1217 1178 946 859 702 1375 1610 L922G12M1960 1240 1180 1866 1876 2014 1336 1451 1930 1724 2144 L922G12M1970 2248 2220 2282 2456 2706 1948 1768 1877 1422 2195 L922G12M1980 1438 1538 2123 1924 1746 1663 2549 2188 2791 3075 L922G12M1990 2290 2476 3168 3303 3380 3360 2558 2406 2812 2316 L922G12M2000 2383 2705 3360 3623 3426 3909 2693 -9999 L922G13M1797 1116 477 593 L922G13M1800 666 590 552 745 1099 822 644 754 712 1031 L922G13M1810 563 1485 1369 964 1070 970 879 1631 1298 1093 L922G13M1820 1374 817 2020 1514 1314 1631 1384 1690 1564 1335 L922G13M1830 941 937 676 1122 1457 1271 1305 1288 1220 1284 L922G13M1840 942 1272 2727 2295 3473 2555 2727 2852 1871 2420 L922G13M1850 1456 1614 1910 1959 1738 1931 2419 2726 2721 2226 L922G13M1860 1963 1984 1728 1340 1472 2408 1996 2058 1914 1672 L922G13M1870 2363 1694 1846 1970 1784 2020 1566 1586 1705 1506 L922G13M1880 1796 2332 1876 1815 2134 2847 2139 2166 1539 2120 L922G13M1890 1890 2060 2517 2010 2136 1982 2212 1720 1474 1456 L922G13M1900 1657 1508 1407 1137 1898 1540 1937 2154 2906 1574 L922G13M1910 1562 1752 1887 1142 1306 1738 870 1802 1170 1052 L922G13M1920 1808 2440 2362 1182 1476 946 551 878 1006 1182 L922G13M1930 1448 1352 620 668 949 2013 1598 1898 2062 1338 L922G13M1940 1187 1707 1174 1142 1249 1304 1075 1288 604 951 L922G13M1950 1348 1166 1086 613 768 816 510 268 479 706 L922G13M1960 658 646 814 643 819 696 530 626 447 426 L922G13M1970 610 466 572 753 591 595 674 662 447 726 L922G13M1980 438 698 1014 610 570 496 676 706 572 494 L922G13M1990 450 750 650 714 937 1000 933 798 1353 954 L922G13M2000 1187 1312 1270 2028 1476 1690 1076 -9999 L922G14M1803 938 993 1224 1125 1368 1571 704 L922G14M1810 595 1311 1445 1050 1456 950 566 1204 1561 1253 L922G14M1820 1378 420 1506 1094 637 1192 1182 870 396 410 L922G14M1830 204 410 494 1149 1790 1772 563 1005 1133 994 L922G14M1840 988 982 1840 794 1782 1382 1422 1536 1160 1340 L922G14M1850 1136 1321 1792 1724 1534 1628 1874 1912 2108 2046 L922G14M1860 1631 2194 1524 1802 1408 1410 1712 1284 1284 920 L922G14M1870 2070 1059 1105 1508 1113 926 1028 964 1021 1012 L922G14M1880 1030 1812 1388 1228 1484 1753 1229 1747 773 1144 L922G14M1890 864 1190 1559 1306 1730 1677 1704 1276 1278 1244 L922G14M1900 1242 1109 1182 1026 1444 1232 1035 1222 1664 1047 L922G14M1910 1210 1292 1311 701 857 988 715 1353 871 807 L922G14M1920 818 1337 1306 564 938 752 478 833 1115 1212 L922G14M1930 1296 1472 611 680 886 1268 886 870 841 596 L922G14M1940 601 826 658 782 945 970 922 1166 755 1086 L922G14M1950 1446 1278 1096 553 554 533 466 318 575 679 L922G14M1960 594 598 732 612 752 612 582 540 541 692 L922G14M1970 734 598 640 634 572 539 631 508 438 856 L922G14M1980 570 810 1070 940 947 668 980 812 634 824 L922G14M1990 671 558 668 794 716 618 601 469 836 807 L922G14M2000 993 1082 1073 1252 786 822 652 -9999 L922G17M1767 858 1245 821 L922G17M1770 955 596 811 1011 774 1400 1135 866 1427 1330 L922G17M1780 1365 1250 1870 1422 2084 1491 1578 1319 1360 1033 L922G17M1790 1040 1146 1214 1225 1373 1247 1081 1367 994 735 L922G17M1800 1131 827 1206 1162 1400 788 719 1209 1459 1303 L922G17M1810 570 1563 1581 656 724 903 958 1260 1717 1575 L922G17M1820 1843 272 1110 1807 1133 1104 1173 1502 1968 2018 L922G17M1830 450 842 673 1036 1445 1815 1598 1122 1233 1675 L922G17M1840 1001 1021 2249 1878 2970 1849 2167 2534 1686 1558 L922G17M1850 957 882 1202 1175 1102 1286 1732 2142 2276 2487 L922G17M1860 1983 2220 2289 1979 1952 2287 2177 1297 1537 1186 L922G17M1870 2385 708 956 1413 1269 1160 1117 1068 1008 1027 L922G17M1880 870 1589 914 982 974 1730 1018 1521 856 1501 L922G17M1890 996 1334 1488 1440 1408 1172 1379 964 966 1321 L922G17M1900 1248 1145 869 694 1155 1108 880 1370 1838 988 L922G17M1910 1095 844 1017 502 485 668 506 1183 618 828 L922G17M1920 494 990 1072 378 462 458 226 556 769 790 L922G17M1930 908 1177 552 600 763 1069 992 1181 961 818 L922G17M1940 486 695 552 552 706 565 324 802 454 710 L922G17M1950 680 956 764 156 467 224 254 172 281 304 L922G17M1960 448 180 417 376 568 415 495 482 302 388 L922G17M1970 534 418 446 454 446 417 493 484 398 626 L922G17M1980 396 653 756 689 681 554 903 729 801 688 L922G17M1990 738 645 584 719 636 798 551 408 740 764 L922G17M2000 1592 1096 1130 1032 1390 1942 1096 -9999 L922G19M1813 1236 1182 1116 1119 1588 1948 1466 L922G19M1820 1401 928 2428 2137 1908 1716 971 1345 1188 1357 L922G19M1830 913 1362 904 1683 2064 1819 1085 910 1257 1400 L922G19M1840 840 705 2153 1126 1691 1214 1331 2093 1123 1020 L922G19M1850 647 892 1311 1416 1416 1321 1286 1264 1788 1750 L922G19M1860 1638 1942 1778 1610 1190 944 1066 931 898 877 L922G19M1870 1339 898 1066 1489 1301 1220 1123 987 756 764 L922G19M1880 632 825 770 766 790 1054 899 1324 890 1274 L922G19M1890 661 939 1054 1028 1028 1054 1130 916 907 1048 L922G19M1900 1080 938 877 826 1467 1028 1167 1286 1570 860 L922G19M1910 957 1057 1119 720 842 784 484 1093 617 874 L922G19M1920 911 1202 1218 804 1430 868 592 922 1120 982 L922G19M1930 1526 1538 726 574 696 1395 828 672 465 376 L922G19M1940 328 559 692 988 1558 1692 1193 1496 892 1268 L922G19M1950 1376 1116 1034 804 829 974 936 756 1427 1326 L922G19M1960 918 957 1191 744 1294 1332 1452 1445 1247 1950 L922G19M1970 1978 913 1182 1270 1233 1258 1780 930 1020 1828 L922G19M1980 776 1273 1462 1250 1270 896 1691 1252 1077 782 L922G19M1990 764 1056 758 1080 1134 1417 1110 722 1821 1118 L922G19M2000 1476 1363 1223 1266 1204 1299 778 -9999 1672. 2008-07-02 09:17:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 2 09:17:18 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-las] Request for Outreach Information to: IPCC WGI TSU Dear WG1 TSU, I've given several talks - on both the whole WG1 and also on Chapter 3. UK Royal Society in March 2007 - Chapter 3 French Academy also in March 2007 - Chapters 3/6 Korean Meteorological Society also in March 2007 - Chapters 3,6 and 9 Summer school (organized by Qin Dahe) at CMA, July 2007- Chapters 3, 6 and 9 Teaching at UEA last autumn. Summer School this July 2008 in Germany - whole report (based on my modifications to Susan's 30 slide talk). Spanish climate meeting in Tarragona, Spain October 2008 Most media requests died down quickly after the Paris meeting, but there were resurgences after the WG2, WG3 plenaries and again after Valencia. Unfortunate side effect has been Freedom of Information Act (UK) requests related to IPCC rules and who made changes to Chapter 6. Dealing with these with Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn through UEA FOI person. Our responses to these appear on Climate Audit quite soon after they leave here. John Mitchell (MOHC) is also being affected by these. Cheers Phil At 17:32 01/07/2008, you wrote: Dear Colleagues, The TSU is currently compiling information regarding the dissemination of the findings of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. We recognize that it is often impossible to separate the presentation of IPCC WG1 findings from your own research or general science material when giving talks. We would greatly appreciate it if you could provide us with a very short summary of your presentations of the WG1 material given at conferences, workshops, briefings, and/or other outreach related events since the approval and acceptance of the WG1 AR4. A sample paragraph is shown below, but please feel free to add more detail if you wish. We realize that this is not a trivial request for many of you, but your activities will provide us with key information on how the AR4 was disseminated by our authors. We kindly request that you provide any information by 21 July 2008. Many thanks in advance. Best regards, WGI TSU SAMPLE: Since the AR4, I frequently give talks on IPCC WG1 and climate at [schools, local communities, other], typically X times per month. I also have presented WG1 material at XX scientific meetings, including YY, ZZ, and AA. I also briefed the governor of my province and gave a presentation at the Science Academy of XX. _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu [1]http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3492. 2008-07-03 09:43:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jul 3 09:43:17 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Small request to: Pete Lamb Pete, Here's the series I would recommend. It comes from 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. and is the one used in the 2007 IPCC report - the chapter I co-ordinated with Kevin. Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J. A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], pp235-336, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. In the file, there are two lines for each year from 1850 to 2008. Ignore the second of each pair of lines - this is the % coverage of the Earth's surface with data. For the first line, the first 12 numbers after the year are Jan-Dec. I suspect you'll want the annual, so take the 13th number. Ignore the 14th, as this is another estimate of the annual. The annual values are all wrt 1961-90. All you need to do is plot these against the year and put a smoother through them. You should then get something like the figure on the CRU home page. Your smoothing may be different, but the yearly values should be exact. [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ 2008 has data through May and it's annual value based on these 5 months. 2008 is relatively cool, but this is due to the La Nina, which makes the world cooler as El Nino makes it warmer. The 1998 record should go when we have the next reasonable El Nino. My rule of thumb about the ENSO influence is that if you take our SOI, which ranges from ~3 to ~-3, each unit of the SOI explains about 0.06 deg C of global T. SOI also leads, so this reg weight comes from looking at high-freq variations of annual global T values versus July (of year -1) to June of the current year. So 1998 was about 0.15 warmer because of the El Nino and 2008 about 0.10 cooler due to the La Nina. 2008 should be cooler than 1998 due to ENSO by about 0.25. Above just a bit of background as you'll likely have to explain why we're apparently not warming. A lot of the skeptics make a big thing about 1998 and apparent cooling since then. ENSO influence on the year-to-year temps is large compared to the 0.02 deg C per year due to global warming if you assume we are warming at 0.2 deg C per decade. 2008 should be about 0.2 warmer than 1998 due to global warming. The values for 1998 (+0.526) and 2008 (+0.247) don't add up - the ENSO difference is about right but the GW part isn't, but as you know there are a lot of other circulation and other influences in the climate system - which your article will allude to! Hope all is well! Cheers Phil At 21:12 02/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil: I'd be very grateful if somebody in CRU could e-mail me an updated version (through 2007) of your time series of globally averaged surfaced air temperature. I need the diagram (or its numerical equivalent) to complete a article for my hometown newspaper in New Zealand (Nelson Mail). I hope you are doing well. Thanks in advance, Pete -- Peter J. Lamb George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Meteorology Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies The University of Oklahoma 120 David L. Boren BLVD.,Suite 2100 Norman, OK 73072-7304 Phone 1-405-325-3041 Fax 1-405-325-3098 Cell 1-405-823-7483 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 578. 2008-07-03 09:46:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:46:20 +0100 from: "Beth Bradbury" subject: Travel & Subsistence claim form for RAPID Annual Science Meeting to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , "Linda Ravera", , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Good Morning Please find attached a travel and subsistence form, please complete and return to me so that your expenses can be reimbursed. Kind Regards Beth Bradbury Swindon Office Administration Team (SOAT) NERC Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon Wiltshire SN2 1EU Tel : 01793 411752 Fax: 01793 411584 Email : bead@nerc.ac.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\T&S form External1.doc" 4962. 2008-07-07 14:02:30 ______________________________________________________ cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, davet@atmos.colostate.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, ackerman@atmos.washington.edu, wallace@atmos.washington.edu, tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu, sarachik@atmos.washington.edu, peter.thorne@metoffice.gov.uk, john.kennedy@metoffice.gof.uk, cwunsch@mit.edu date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:02:30 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: clearing up climate trends sans ENSO and perhaps PDO? to: Andrew Revkin Andy The PDO is written up and some maps given in IPCC Chapter 3. Most of it will already be accounted for in global T if ENSO is accounted for. You will see from Figure 3.28 that there is a strong PDO signature in the tropics that maps onto ENSO, even though it is derived entirely from extratropical SSTs. Given that this is supposed to be a decadal oscillation, all the stuff about a switch in PDO is utter nonsense and is simply aliasing of ENSO. Exactly the same thing happened after the 1997-98 switch to a La Nina. It is impossible to tell whether a switch has occurred or whether it is a single La Nina until many years after the event, by definition. In any case it is silly to "remove" the decadal variability because that is the signal and the question is whether this is a manifestation of global warming or not? As we note in IPCC, there are aspects of this that are NOT decadal variability but rather constitute a singular event (see Fig 3.29) and there is no sign that it is not part of the trend or actually a step function to a different way for climate to operate. This is not simulated by climate models, but that is likely a problem with models. The information to date suggests the PDO and the 1976/77 step function originates in the tropics and involves the Indian ocean as well the Pacific. Please see the IPCC Chapter 3. Kevin Andrew Revkin wrote: dear all, re-sending because of a glitch. finally got round to posting on an earlier inquiry I made to some of you about whether there was a 'clean' graph of multi-decades temperature trends with ENSO wiggles removed -- thanks to gavin (and david thompson) posting on realclimate. here's Dot Earth piece with link to Realclimate etc.. [1]http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/climate-trends-with-some-noise-removed/?ex= 1216094400&en=a57177d93165cba3&ei=5070 next step is PDO. has anyone characterized how much impact (if any) PDO has on hemispheric or global temp trends, and if so is there a graph showing what happens when that's accounted for? as you are doubtless aware, this is another bone of contention with a lot of the anti-greenhouse-limits folks and some scientists (the post 1970s change is a PDO thing, etc etc). hoping to show a bit of how that works. thanks for any insights. and i encourage you to comment and provide links etc with the current post to add context etc. -- Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times / Science 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 Fax: 509-357-0965 [2]www.nytimes.com/revkin -- **************** Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [3]trenbert@ucar.edu Climate Analysis Section, [4]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 3017. 2008-07-07 15:00:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:00:47 -0500 from: Pete Lamb subject: Re: Small request to: Phil Jones Hi Phil: Many thanks for your detailed response, which will be most helpful. I'll send you a copy of the article if the Editor and I reach agreement on it. I'm attaching a couple of other recent newspaper articles on the subject. The longer one (first attachment) appeared as a full-page feature article in The Norman Transcript (Oklahoma) last November 1, and the shorter version derived from it was in the Dominion Post (Wellington, NZ) on the page opposite the Editorial page on March 28. See, I'm going to bat for you Global Warming folk! Furthermore, I'm sure you also were pleased to see the All Blacks thrash England recently at Rugby. However, if your Cricket allegiance is with England, then we had an honorable split. Thanks again and best wishes, Pete Peter J. Lamb George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Meteorology Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies The University of Oklahoma 120 David L. Boren BLVD.,Suite 2100 Norman, OK 73072-7304 Phone 1-405-325-3041 Fax 1-405-325-3098 Cell 1-405-823-7483 Phil Jones wrote: Pete, Here's the series I would recommend. It comes from 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. and is the one used in the 2007 IPCC report - the chapter I co-ordinated with Kevin. Trenberth, K.E., P.D. Jones, P. Ambenje, R. Bojariu, D. Easterling, A. Klein Tank, D. Parker, F. Rahimzadeh, J. A. Renwick, M. Rusticucci, B. Soden and P. Zhai, 2007: Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], pp235-336, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. In the file, there are two lines for each year from 1850 to 2008. Ignore the second of each pair of lines - this is the % coverage of the Earth's surface with data. For the first line, the first 12 numbers after the year are Jan-Dec. I suspect you'll want the annual, so take the 13th number. Ignore the 14th, as this is another estimate of the annual. The annual values are all wrt 1961-90. All you need to do is plot these against the year and put a smoother through them. You should then get something like the figure on the CRU home page. Your smoothing may be different, but the yearly values should be exact. [1] http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ 2008 has data through May and it's annual value based on these 5 months. 2008 is relatively cool, but this is due to the La Nina, which makes the world cooler as El Nino makes it warmer. The 1998 record should go when we have the next reasonable El Nino. My rule of thumb about the ENSO influence is that if you take our SOI, which ranges from ~3 to ~-3, each unit of the SOI explains about 0.06 deg C of global T. SOI also leads, so this reg weight comes from looking at high-freq variations of annual global T values versus July (of year -1) to June of the current year. So 1998 was about 0.15 warmer because of the El Nino and 2008 about 0.10 cooler due to the La Nina. 2008 should be cooler than 1998 due to ENSO by about 0.25. Above just a bit of background as you'll likely have to explain why we're apparently not warming. A lot of the skeptics make a big thing about 1998 and apparent cooling since then. ENSO influence on the year-to-year temps is large compared to the 0.02 deg C per year due to global warming if you assume we are warming at 0.2 deg C per decade. 2008 should be about 0.2 warmer than 1998 due to global warming. The values for 1998 (+0.526) and 2008 (+0.247) don't add up - the ENSO difference is about right but the GW part isn't, but as you know there are a lot of other circulation and other influences in the climate system - which your article will allude to! Hope all is well! Cheers Phil At 21:12 02/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil: I'd be very grateful if somebody in CRU could e-mail me an updated version (through 2007) of your time series of globally averaged surfaced air temperature. I need the diagram (or its numerical equivalent) to complete a article for my hometown newspaper in New Zealand (Nelson Mail). I hope you are doing well. Thanks in advance, Pete -- Peter J. Lamb George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Meteorology Director, NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies The University of Oklahoma 120 David L. Boren BLVD.,Suite 2100 Norman, OK 73072-7304 Phone 1-405-325-3041 Fax 1-405-325-3098 Cell 1-405-823-7483 Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [3][header.jpg] Global warming -- certainty and uncertainty The Norman Transcript -- By Peter J. Lamb For The Transcript Now that the U.S. has taken a first if tiny step towards world leadership concerning global climate change -- President Bush's one-day "mini-summit" in Washington two weeks ago -- it is opportune to review the varying levels of scientific certainty and uncertainty that characterize our understanding of this issue. A major responsibility of scientists is to state the uncertainty of their results. It is completely certain that the Earth is experiencing ongoing global warming. When averaged over the entire planet for individual years, the temperature of surface air has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (or 2 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1910. Approximately half of this warming occurred in each of the periods between 1910-40 and 1970-2000. During the intervening 1940-70 period, that temperature either decreased (1940-50) or increased slightly (1950-70). The same results have been obtained for all continents and the surface temperature of the total global ocean. This warming did not come as a surprise, since it was predicted by the understanding of physics developed during the 1700s and 1800s, and was anticipated by scientists for most of the 1900s. During its 4.7 billion year history, the Earth has not become forever increasingly hot or cold. This is because the amount of heat the Earth receives from the sun always has been closely (but not always exactly) balanced by the heat the Earth emits back to Space. Increasing the atmosphere's greenhouse gases delays the return of the sun's heat to space, and requires an increase in surface air temperature. Consistent with this situation, recent computer model simulations have shown conclusively that almost all of the observed 1970-2000 warming would not have occurred without the strong simultaneous greenhouse gas increase. The reason for this warming now is as certain as the fact of the warming. Furthermore, the environmental evidence of this greenhouse gas-induced warming is widespread -- shrinking or disappearance of high altitude mountain glaciers in tropical East Africa, New Guinea, and northern South America; decreasing Northern Hemisphere snow cover; thinning and contraction of sea ice around the North Pole during summer; rising sea levels globally; and ice losses from the edges of Greenland and Antarctica. On the other hand, the same computer model simulations suggest that natural variability accounted for most of the temperature trends accompanying the slower rate of greenhouse gas increase during 1910-40 (warming) and 1940-70 (cooling then slight warming). Much more important than the 1 degree Celsius increase in global surface air temperature since 1910 will be the rate of further greenhouse gas-induced temperature increase during this new century. The above computer model simulations were very successful in reproducing the 20th century changes in the global surface air temperature. This is why the same computer models then were used to estimate the temperature changes that could occur if greenhouse gases continue to increase for the rest of the 21st century. However, this computer modeling extension introduces two unavoidable uncertainties. The first uncertainty involves the extended application of the models into the new century, for which convincing model validation will not be possible for at least 20 years. The second uncertainty stems from the need to make assumptions about future increases of greenhouse gas emissions, which will be determined by social, economic and political considerations that operate within and between nations. However, even when accompanied by these uncertainties, the computer model predictions of global surface air temperature for later this century are worrisome. Continued increases in greenhouse gas emissions at medium rates are suggested to raise the global temperature by a further 2 degrees Celsius to 2.5 degrees Celsius by the last decade of this century, with that increase being as high as 3 degrees Celsius to 4 degrees Celsius if the emissions increase proceeds at a high rate. These projected temperature increases are "best estimates" extracted from many computer model simulations. They are just as likely to be underestimates as overestimates, with the "likely range" of outcomes extending from 1.0 degree Celsius to 2.4 degrees Celsius on each side of the best estimate. About half of these temperature changes are expected to occur by 2050. Such century-long temperature change would be very significant in a historical context -- it would approach or exceed the temperature levels characteristic of the Last Interglacial Maximum period of 125,000-150,000 years ago, and be about half or more of the size of the strong cooling that characterized the maximum of the last Ice Age around 18,000 years ago (about 8 degrees Celsius colder than today). The word "global" appears in the term "global warming" because the fundamental nature of the issue indeed is global. It is the Earth as a whole (as opposed to any particular region) that closely balances the heat gained from the sun with the heat returned to space. This is why we are monitoring the trend in the global, annually averaged surface air temperature, which involves just one number per year for the entire Earth. In this purely scientific sense, regional variability is not important. From the societal standpoint, however, regional manifestations of the overall global warming are of paramount importance, especially the associated precipitation changes. And it is on this regional scale where the 21st century prediction uncertainty increases, especially for precipitation. For surface air temperature, all parts of the Earth are predicted to experience warming, with the warming maximizing first in high northern latitudes and later also around and over Antarctica. The reasons for this high latitude maximization are well understood -- less snow cover would reduce greatly the reflection of sunlight directly back to space, and the resulting atmospheric warming would be confined to a relatively thin vertical layer of air. For the central United States, including Oklahoma, the "best estimate" warming is predicted to reach 1degree to 1.5 degrees Celsius (annual average) by the 2020s and 2.5 degrees to 3.5 degrees Celsius by the 2090s. Not surprisingly, the uncertainty of the predicted warming is considerably larger for the 2090s than the 2020s. A major reason for the higher uncertainty of regional precipitation predictions is the relatively poor treatment of thunderstorm rainfall in the computer models developed so far. Thunderstorm rainfall is of high intensity and is very important in the tropics and also in mid-latitudes during the warm season. Unfortunately, model precipitation is overly biased towards much lower (non-thunderstorm) rates, especially drizzle. The well publicized predictions of greater precipitation variability for later this century are model-based, and so include this uncertainty, which often has been glossed over. For the last 20 years, earlier computer models with additional weaknesses suggested that the central United States (including Oklahoma) would become drier as well as hotter during summer by the middle of this century. However, the recent partially improved computer simulations discussed above are less definite in that regard. While the areas poleward of 50 degrees latitude (including Canada) are predicted to become wetter in summer, and the zones between 15 degrees-30 degrees latitude (including Mexico) are suggested to become drier, the models are in much less agreement for the U.S. which lies between 30 degrees-50 degrees N. Accordingly, Oklahoma and most of the U.S. are placed in an indeterminate category for summer rainfall change. However, winter drying is suggested more strongly by those simulations for the southwestern U.S., including Oklahoma. Such change would not be good for Oklahoma wheat production. Recent news reports were quick to blame "global warming" and "climate change" for the abundant 2007 summer monsoon rain in South Asia and West Africa. This conclusion is premature at best. Both regions experienced similarly large monsoon rainfall at times during the 1900s when greenhouse gases were lower. Also, research has related such monsoon rainfall extremes to global sea surface temperature patterns including those given by El Ni?os and La Ni?as. Such causes likely prevailed in 2007. Interestingly, former Vice President Gore's book (pages 116-117) suggests a completely opposite global warming causal argument for the West African monsoon -- that the drought there in recent decades has been due to greenhouse gas increases and climate change. This possibility was investigated thoroughly in a recent computer modeling study, where it was not substantiated. Instead, the findings further endorsed the role of shorter-term sea surface temperature variations. In similar vein, Oklahoma's record breaking summer 2007 rainfall should not be blamed on global warming, just like our recent sequence of not-too-hot summers does not disprove global warming. Oklahoma is a very small part of the Earth. On Aug. 10, The Norman Transcript editorialized negatively about the "Doubters among us" concerning climate change. The results summarized above come from the creative endeavors of 600 scientists from around the world. The "doubters," in contrast, are very small in number and have produced few or no relevant research results themselves. Instead, in the recent words of a correspondent to my hometown newspaper (Nelson Mail, New Zealand, Sept. 13), "anti-climate change groups ... in our society ... deny, set up a smokescreen of deliberate misinformation, and drag in as many red herrings as possible." In a much larger article, the Aug. 13 Newsweek cover story probed revealingly "inside the denial machine" of the "well funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change." The same negative approach was long used by the tobacco industry and continues to be employed by anti-evolution creationists and advocates of so-called "Intelligent Design." It is revealing to compare President Bush's recent one-day "mini-summit" with the great American accomplishments of the 20th century that were based on superior science and technology. Those accomplishments included the automobile, flight, the Manhattan project and winning World War II, the Marshall Plan and reconstruction of Germany and Japan, the Space Program, computers, winning the Cold War, and the Internet. The nation that achieved all this because of the combination of its ingenuity and work ethic has a responsibility to provide world leadership to address the difficult challenge of global warming. While a case can be made for the U.S. non-ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, much less excusable is the subsequent near total inaction under Presidential Administrations and Congressional Majorities of both major political parties. The second reason generally given for the poor regard in which the U.S. currently is held by the rest of the World, after the Iraq War, is its lack of leadership on environmental issues, especially global warming. There are some other certainties. One is that constructive U.S. engagement will be needed before China can be persuaded to address its ever growing and now world leading contribution to the global warming problem. Another certainty is that the North Pole-to-Antarctic ice and snow melting and global sea level rise that have accompanied the 1 degree Celsius global temperature increase will be followed by more dire environmental and ecological changes if that temperature increase proceeds relentlessly to 2 degrees Celsius, which is projected to occur by mid-century. Uncertainties about the details of such environmental and ecological change no longer should be used as excuses for inaction. That time certainly has passed, which is another certainty. Peter J. Lamb is a George Lynn Cross Research Professor of Meteorology and Director of the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies at The University of Oklahoma. This article is based on presentations he has been making in a variety of forums, including to several Norman civic groups, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, U.S. National Weather Service forecasters from Kansas and Nebraska, and (last Wednesday) the Global Fusion Oklahoma Centennial Business Conference and International Festival in Oklahoma City. Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Dominion Post Global Warming Article08032809510.pdf" 1956. 2008-07-09 10:07:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 9 10:07:11 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission] to: "Bo Vinther" , k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, ddj@gfy.ku.dk, hbc@gfy.ku.dk, kka@gfy.ku.dk, sigfus@gfy.ku.dk, bo@gfy.ku.dk Bo et al, I went onto the QSJ web site and found the comments from Rev 1, so am attaching them. Rev 1 says a lot, but all is positive and shouldn't take too long to include. Some of the necessary responses will make useful additions to the paper. A few may even have helped Rev 2. As for Rev 2, they also appear to want much more detail and much more justification for what has been done. They also seem to contradict themselves a couple of times. I'm much happier with fishing than relying on theory, so give me correlations any day! What would likely placate them the most would be plots with correlations between SW Greenland, Stykkisholmur and the long Angmassalik record on E Greenland. The length of the paper will likely increase, so it would be worth considering putting one or two parts into Appendices if this is possible. Cheers Phil At 02:24 09/07/2008, Bo Vinther wrote: Dear Phil, Keith, Dorthe, Katrine, Sigfus and Henrik I have received the reviews on our seasonal O18 manuscript for QSR. As far as I can see Reviewer 1 is very positive and has some suggestions for improvements while Reviewer 2 finds the paper too specialized and is unhappy with the statistics and in general sceptic of the results we present.... The editor wants us to revise the paper - which I intend to do - but probably not before late August when I return from the field. Luckily that does not seem to be a problem. I will mail you all a draft revised version of the paper as well as a point by point response to the reviewers comments as soon as I have this ready... All the best Bo ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Your Submission From: "Quaternary Science Reviews" Date: Tue, July 1, 2008 10:53 am To: bo@gfy.ku.dk Cc: a.j.long@durham.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Ref. No.: JQSR-D-08-00106 Title: Climatic signals in multiple highly resolved stable isotope records from Greenland Quaternary Science Reviews Dear Dr. Bo M Vinther, Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. Both referees see important and novel work in your paper but raise some significant issues regarding the processing,interpretation and presentation of the data. Although referee 1 suggests that the paper is too specialised for QSR, I disagree and think that a suitably revised paper has the potential to make an important contribution to the journal. I ask that if you wish to revise your paper, you submit a detailed response to the specific comments raised by each referee. It is likely, given the nature of the comments raised, that I will send the revised manuscript out for re-review. For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below. To submit a revision, please go to [1]http://ees.elsevier.com/jqsr/ and login as an Author. Your username is: bmv Your password is: vinther6573 On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Antony Long Editor Quaternary Science Reviews Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: see attached pdf file Reviewer #2: The authors separate high-resolution isotope records from 20 ice cores in Greenland (14 after stacking) into winter and summer timeseries, on the basis of correlations with Greenland and Iceland instrumental temperature records. They argue that the winter data are more spatially coherent than summer data, and have a stronger climate signal (despite more noise in winter). They then use 3 long records to extend the analysis back to ~600 AD. The most interesting result is the better correlation of winter isotope timeseries with borehole temperature inversions than summer and annual timeseries, but the differences are seen most readily before ~1300 AD. Curiously, the winter isotope data exhibit a millennial-scale cooling trend that is similar to the well-known NH temperature reconstructions, which are primarily derived from summer sensitive tree-rings. The authors do not discuss this last point. The writing is, for the most part, clear and well-organized. It is an interesting analysis, and I am impressed that the seasonal splitting can be done, yielding some promising results, especially the borehole-isotope comparison. Unfortunately, the analysis raises more questions than it answers, and has insufficient detail and explanation of methodology. Furthermore, the referencing and discussions are quite limited, and as such the manuscript does not seem appropriate for a review journal like QSR. I think the paper requires major revision before being re-submitted, perhaps to a more specialized journal. The following major issues should be addressed, followed by a number a minor issues. MAJOR ISSUES One) The limitations and assumptions of diffusion modeling. What parameters drive the diffusion model? How were these estimated? What is the sensitivity of the results to different choices of parameters? Two) On what physical basis is the 50/50 split between winter and summer isotopes made? What about the seasonality of precipitation? It is different in SW Greenland vs central and E Greenland? See Bromwich et al (1998, JGR 103, D20, 26007-26024). Three) Misleading interpretation of Figures 2 and 3. The authors have optimized the correlations of isotopes with a small set of temperature records. I think it is always dangerous to explain a variable like del 18-O in terms of a two-parameter model (SW Greenland and Stykkisholmur), without any regard to the physical processes driving the isotope signal. The model is bound to be over-fit (if only conceptually) by forcing the data into this simple 2-parameter framework; the analysis borders on "fishing" for correlation "bites." In figure 2, there are little differences in correlations for isotope fractions from 50-100%, whereas there are comparatively large differences in the choice of instrumental data, especially in panel b. In panel 3a, there is both a dependency on isotope fraction (improves as more data are included) and a dependency on how many months included in the temperature record (improves systematically from 2 to 12 months selected, especially in panel a). This improvement is not logical at face value, as the "summer" isotopes are poorly correlated with summer temperature (July-Aug and Jun-Sep curves are at the bottom in 3a!!), and better correlated as more winter data are included from the instrumental record. Furthermore, winter centering works better for SW Greenland, whereas summer centering works better for Stykkisholmur temperatures. Does this have something to do with the seasonality of precipitation? I would conclude first, that in most cases, including more than 50% isotope data leads to better correlations with temperature, and it doesn't hurt that much in the other cases (in panel 2a for example, where the max correlation only drops from ~0.68 to ~0.65 from 50% to 100%). In this regard, it is apparently the exclusion of winter data that hurt the correlations more than the inclusion of summer data. Second, it seems to me that the correlations have a stronger dependency on the selection of instrumental data than on the selection of isotope fraction. This is the opposite conclusion of the authors, who argue that the splitting of the isotope records fundamentally alters the interpretation of the records. I don't think our interpretations are altered that much, as we have known about NAO signals in Greenland isotopes for a long time (going back at least to White et al, 1997, JGR, 102 C12, 26425-26439), before any seasonal splitting was done. Furthermore, we cannot reach a conclusion about the merit of winter-centering vs summer-centering the year, as it depends on which instrumental record is used. Four) It is not explained how field correlations are derived from the 14 point observations in Figures 7,8,9,10,13,14,15, and 16. How are these maps derived from 14 sites? There appears to be at most, 3 levels of correlation in each map. Why not show the correlation and regression coefficients for each ice core record? Fifth) The statistical significance of correlations is not assessed, and the authors use inconsistent criteria for discussing significance. Six) Are the winter and summer data really independent? Why do the PC patterns in Figures 10 and 16 look so similar? What is the correlation between PC1-summer and PC1-winter? It should be near zero, but it doesn't look like that is the case. Seven) The coherency among records is only partly assessed. It would be helpful to show the correlations among the 14 records. The differences in level of variance explained in summer vs winter PCs, and the correlations in tables 3 and 4, aren't different enough to convince me that summer records are less coherent than winter records. If summer is less noisy, shouldn't summer be more coherent? Eight) Incomplete referencing and discussion, especially since this is supposed to be a review article. Vinther and colleagues are not the first to evaluate the NAO and temperature signals in Greenland ice cores. I am surprised at the omission of White et al 1997, the more recent work of Schneider and Noone (2007; JGR, 112, D18105, doi:10.1029/2007JD008652), and others. There is no discussion of any physics, or of any modeling studies (e.g. Werner and Heimann, 2002, JGR 107 D1, 10.1029/2001JD00253) that might support (or not) the results. MINOR ISSUES Introduction, pg2: It's claimed that the NAO is the dominant mode of the NH. But the North Atlantic is not the entire Northern Hemisphere! An objective analysis of the entire NH SLP field reveals the hemispheric-scale Northern Annular Mode/Arctic Oscillation to be the dominant mode (e.g Quadrelli and Wallace, 2004, J Clim 17, 3728). The NAO can be viewed as part of this larger mode, but is not by itself the dominant mode. Data section 2.2: It is not explained how representative the Stykkisholmur record is of E Greenland temps. Diffusion section 2.1: It is not explained which parameters were inputs into the diffusion model, and how these were chosen. Seasons, section 3.3: The seasonality of precip is not addressed. You can't assume that del 18 O max/mins universally equal temp max/mins across the ice sheet, and that the max/mins occur at the same time of year everywhere. Pages 5-6: See my major comments above. The 50/50 split seems too arbitrary, and the claim of independence of summer and winter is not demonstrated. Are PCs1 of summer and winter independent? What is the physical basis of these correlations? In this and all following sections, statistical significance has been neglected. Section 4, pg 6: How do you define SNR? Pg 7, top paragraph: If lower variability is forced on the S Greenland isotope timeseries, why not do the same to the instrumental data to make a more straightforward comparison? Pg 8: If PCs 2 and 3 are statistical noise, how can you use them to reach a conclusion about the influence of the Central Greenland ice divide on air masses? This assertion is also not supported by the regressions on Fig 12. Pg 9, section 6.1: I suspect that all of the correlations below 0.25 or so are not significant, so there is not really a clear SW-NE reduction in significance, just noise. The significance level also depends on the auto-correlation of the timeseries, which is not shown. So a lower correlation in the NE sector could be more significant than a higher correlation in the SW sector. Pg 10, section 6.4 and Table 4: It is not demonstrated that 34.9 % for summer and 39.9% for winter are statistically different, if you were to say, look at the error bars on the eigenvalues. If PC2 and PC3 are more meaningful in summer than winter, why do summer and winter loading patterns look virtually identical? Pg 11-12, section 7.1: Neglect to mention that the effective resolution of the borehole inversions decreases back in time, which may affect the correlations, and the ability of the borehole record to resolve the high-frequencies seen in the isotopes. Also, DYE3 borehole has larger amplitude variation than GRIP, which is not explained. What are the correlations among the timeseries in Figs 19 and 20, so that we can see that winter is clearly better? For DYE3, why do the annual and summer fits look pretty good for 1300-1970, but not prior to 1300? Pg 12: It might not be helpful to include summer isotope data to compare with winter and annual temps, but the exclusion of winter data to compare with annual temps is probably the bigger issue. Section 7.2: The discussion of Table 4 is difficult to follow. It appears to me the C/G correlations are better for summer and annual than for winter, the D/C correlation is similar across seasons, and the D/G correlation only works for winter. Why not use a C/G stack or a D/C stack that is good for all seasons? How do these stacks compare with PC1, and are they better/worse correlated with instrumental temperatures? How does a D/G isotope stack compare with stacked D/G borehole records? Section 8, pg 13: ".the summer data are much less influenced by noise and significant atmospheric pressure patterns can be identified, even down to the third summer del 18 O PC." At what point in the manuscript are "significant atmospheric pressure patterns" shown for summer? In section 6.5, if one cannot interpret PCs1-2, it is not valid to interpret PC3. TABLE1: It would be helpful to list the time span covered by the ice core records, and an indication of which records were stacked together. This would be more useful than the drill year & core length. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4354. 2008-07-09 11:00:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Jul 9 11:00:41 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Radon. to: "Arnold Wolfendale" Dear Arnold, Thanks for the paper. Getting into climate science can seem difficult. Climate Science seems to be ever expanding. I often get requests to comment on all manner of things - from the G8 summit statement yesterday to carbon savings from renewable technologies and biofuels. I try to stay in what I know which is the climate science, but the media and the public seem to think I should be a fount of all knowledge on all things climate. G8 did at least endorse the IPCC, but the politicians don't seem to have much idea of what to do about it or how serious it might become. They have opportunities for far-sightedness, but they all work on a different timescale. The Svensmark hypothesis is just about ignored in what I like to call mainstream climate science (the WG1 reports of IPCC). I presume you've talked to Mike Lockwood about your work. Svensmark at least publishes his work in the literature (not mainstream climate journals) and acts like a scientist. There is a whole raft of skeptics who have found each other through the internet and this is where it gets nasty on some of the blog sites. Cheers Phil At 12:04 08/07/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Many thanks for your prompt reply. I was interested in your remarks about radon and cloud cover.It seems to us that if Svensmark et al. were right there would be some effect,at least for those regions where the radon level is very high.The highest radon level in the world is,apparently,in Ramsar,Iran.So far,however,we have not been able to obtain contours.A 'state secret' it seems!No effect in Southern India. Your remarks about the ISCCLP data being error-prone are well taken.However,they are the best we have.The change in 1994,sometimes attributed to orbit changes,etc.,may well be genuine,insofar as this is when the anthropic temperature rise seems to bite and,furthermore, we find increased variability in various cloud parameters after then. Thank you for the 'Swedish paper';most interesting. I'm sending a copy of our published paper.We have more on the stocks. I must say that Cosmic Ray Physics and Cosmology,my usual areas,are a damned sight easier than yours! Kind Regards, Arnold. -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:29 AM To: Arnold Wolfendale Subject: Re: Radon. Arnold, As you're aware there is a large literature on the subject of cloud cover variations and surface air temperatures. No knowledge of any work with radon and cloud cover. Biggest problem is that the cloud cover obs are fairly short and/or affected by biases - both surface observer based and satellite based. Satellite clouds have the same problems as measurements on lower tropospheric temps due to differing satellites and changes in orbits. The ISCCLP dataset is affected. The attached is just a small example of the problems of putting together a surface-based cloud dataset for Sweden. Cheers Phil At 10:19 08/07/2008, you wrote: > >Dear Phil, > Do you know of any work on possible correlations of radon with Cloud >cover or ground level temperature?We have done some work in this area >but being newcomers to the field we are not adequately acquainted with >who has done what. > Our interest stems from the need to check the Svensmark >hypothesis.Although far-fetched it needs checking carefully.we have >done some work already but need to be sure. > Kind Regards, > Arnold. > (Sir Arnold Wolfendale FRS) Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3494. 2008-07-10 09:18:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Humphrey, Kathryn \(CEOSA\)'" date: Thu Jul 10 09:18:02 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: UKCIP Comments on Annex 4 to: "Roger Street" , "'C G Kilsby'" , "'Jenkins, Geoff'" Roger, Timely comments. I'm working on revising Ch 5 and also Annex 4. I'll send these off to Chris tomorrow, as I'm away next week. It would be very useful to get Ch 5 and Annex 4 read through again when we have revised the text. Suggest this isn't all of the SG plus others, but a smaller select group - mainly those that provided the majority of comments on the WG parts. Cheers Phil At 07:55 10/07/2008, Roger Street wrote: I understand that it is now past the identified deadline; however I offer the following comments in the interest of improving the presentation of Annex 4 Annex 4 As per comments on the overall report, when referring to the weather generator within UKCIP08, it should be identified as the UKCIP08 weather generator and not just the WG. Page 1, lines 4-5 Support the effort to provide a purpose for this annex. Suggest that these statements should begin with what is the purpose of the annex, not by pointing the reader to another section of the report. It would also help to describe the intent of the annex from a readers perspective. Page 2, line 7-8 Suggest simply explaining what is meant by the variance and skewness of daily rainfall amounts and the lag-1 autocorrelation. Page 2, line 9-10 It is not clear which estimation uses the daily gridded precipitation dataset and for what purpose. Page 2, line 16-17 The network of 115 stations across the UK covers which period in time? Page 3, line 12-13 Suggest explaining why half month values were used in this case. Page 3, line 18-19 Somewhat confusing as it was noted on page 2, lines 16-17 that gridded data similar to precipitation are not yet available and here it says that all the IVRs are either available on the 5kmX5km grid or have been interpolated to this grid. Page 3, line 23 Unable to find figure A3 Page 3, line 34-33 What are the implications of this assumption in terms of the results (sensitivity)? Page 4, line 4-5 Suggest a little more information is needed about the limited capability of the WG to reproduce extremes. This will be key and a major shortcoming from the perspective of users. Page 4, lines 10-13 Suggest that some rationale as to why these factors were chosen could be helpful. Page 5, lines 4-21 Suggest that there is a need to rethink the means (and validity) of presentation of these equations. A little more explanation (such as what is each equation showing) may be quite helpful Page 5, lines 27-30 Suggest The hourly component of the UKCIP08 weather generator is based on the hourly timescale. For the future weather generator simulations, it is assumed that none of these relationships will change, principally because. It is not apparent as to why little confidence in the RCM a GCM simulations at timescales less than daily leads to the assumption in lines 28. Suggest some clarification. Page 5, line 34 Not clear what is done for rainfall. Page 6, line 25 It is not clear as to the type of application for which the UKCIP08 weather generator is being used. Is this an impacts, vulnerability or adaptation assessment? Page 6, line 31 Believe that this is the first time that the initial seed is mentioned. Suggest that some further explanation is needed Page 6, line 34 Suggest impacts assessment rather than impact sector. Page 7, lines 20-22 Suggest that like raised in the comment for page 4, lines 4-5, some further detail related to the limited performance for events such as heatwaves is required. This will also need to be covered from a use perspective within the UKCIP08 user guidance, but the rationale and nature of the limitation need to be spelled out in the projections report (chapter 5 or annex 4). Hope that these comments and suggestions can be used to improve the annex. Roger Technical Director UKCIP-OUCE Dyson Perrings Building South Parks Road +44 (0)186 528 5713 UKCIP's website has been relaunched, with improved navigation and a host of new features. [1]www.ukcip.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4500. 2008-07-10 10:32:39 ______________________________________________________ cc: "tim Osborn" date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:32:39 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: FOI appeal to: k.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, p.jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Keith and Phil, if I remember right, then the decision on Holland's appeal needs to be returned to him in about a week's time. Have you heard anything from Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his decision? Tim 1831. 2008-07-10 10:47:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:47:24 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there. Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see, Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper. Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments. Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting higher-order autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper. As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main error in their analysis. In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1 model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a number of previous studies. Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive models to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult business, particularly given the relatively short length of the time series available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the parameters of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The same applies to reliable estimation of the spectral density at frequency zero (since we have only 2-3 independent samples for estimating the spectral density at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's comments are not particularly relevant to the specific problem we are dealing with here. It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER effective sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even more difficult to find significant differences between modelled and observed trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to obtain "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences between modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore, that our test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a non-significance trend difference - which they might claim if we used a (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard errors. The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper become established as the default method of estimating standard errors in climatological time series". We do not claim universal applicability of our approach. There may well be circumstances in which it is more appropriate to use higher-order AR models in estimating standard errors. I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper. I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the shorter paper requested by the Reviewer. It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response to Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there! 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Account-Key: account1 Return-Path: Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:07:04 -0700 Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m69674LM010414 for <[vacation]santer1@mail.llnl.gov>; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:07:04 -0700 Received: (from vacmgr@localhost) by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id m69674am010413 for [vacation]santer1@mail.llnl.gov; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:07:04 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: mail-1.llnl.gov: vacmgr set sender to g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz using -f Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m6966u3i010371 for ; Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:07:03 -0700 X-Attachments: * JOC-production-requ.doc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5334"; a="21123949" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,329,1212390000"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="21123949" Received: from nsziron-3.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.83]) by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2008 23:07:01 -0700 X-Attachments: * JOC-production-requ.doc X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5334"; a="47882084" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,329,1212390000"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="47882084" Received: from uranus.scholarone.com ([170.107.181.135]) by nsziron-3.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2008 23:07:00 -0700 Received: from tss1be0007 (tss1be0007 [10.237.148.33]) by uranus.scholarone.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F62B2883B for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <363254525.1215583619734.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0007> Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 02:06:59 -0400 (EDT) From: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz To: santer1@llnl.gov Subject: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript Errors-To: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1328_363182756.1215583619708" X-Errors-To: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com Ben A couple of comments before you read the standard letter below and associated comments. You have seen those of Referee 1. Now the long awaited comments from reviewer 2 are back. The reviewer raises three issues. Of these it would seem to me that length is one issue not to concern yourself with. If you could include a couple of lines clarifying the nature of s(bo) as suggested by the reviewer that would be helpful. Lastly could you address the comment about the time series autocorrelation issue - I think no further anaysis is required here but what is needed is perhaps a short defence of the strategy adopted. I will not send the revised version back to the reviewer but will proceed based on the alterations made to the paper and your associated response summarising how you have addressed the issues raised. Needless to say I look forward to publishing this paper once you have got back to me with the suggested minor alterations completed. ============================ Dear Dr Santer Manuscript # JOC-08-0098.R1 entitled "Consistency of Modelled and Observed Temperature Trends in the Tropical Troposphere" which you submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, has been reviewed. The comments of the referee(s), all of whom are leading international experts in this field, are included at the bottom of this letter. If the reviewer submitted comments as an attachment this will only be visible via your Author Centre. It will not be attached to this email. Log in to Manuscript Central, go to your Author Centre, find your manuscript in the "Manuscripts with Decisions" queue. Click on the Decision Letter link. Within the Decision letter is a further link to the reviewer attachment. I am very happy to grant conditional acceptance of the paper, subject to you making satisfactory revisions as clarified below. These revisions are minor, in the sense that there are no major recalculations or major analyses required, but there may be less-major analyses needed and there are a number of important revisions to the text that are necessary. Please review the attached document listing the file requirements for your revision. In your revisions, please address all of the points made by each reviewer, make suitable edits to the manuscript, and include a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment with your response. Use the space provided or upload a file documenting your responses. I will study your responses and determine if the edits were handled satisfactorily. I would like to receive the revised manuscript as soon as is convenient, but with a deadline about 2 months from now. This should be sufficient time given the minor revisions, but please communicate with me (email is best) now or closer to the time if you need an extension of the deadline. I feel confident that, pending careful revisions as outlined above, I will be able to publish your paper in the International Journal of Climatology. You can upload your revised manuscript and submit it through your Author Centre. Log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/joc and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." IMPORTANT: Please make sure you closely follow the instructions for acceptable files. When submitting (uploading) your revised manuscript, please delete the file(s) that you wish to replace and then upload the revised file(s). Please remember that the publishers will not accept a manuscript unless accompanied by the Copyright Transfer Agreement. Please go to: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/4735/nscta.pdf The Copyright Transfer Form and the Permissions Form should be scanned and uploaded with your submission to Manuscript Central, designated as "Supplemental Material not for review". If you do not have access to a scanner, further instructions will be provided upon the acceptance of your paper. Forms should not be sent to the editorial office. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Climatology. I look forward to receiving your revision. Sincerely, Prof. Glenn McGregor Editor, International Journal of Climatology Referee(s)' Comments to Author: Referee: 1 Comments to the Author I think the authors have responded more than satisfactorily to my comments. I have only a few minor additional comments 1. p19, lines 37-39 (short sentence beginning with "This is essentially ..."). I would leave this out I think. DCPS07 do not clearly articulate the hypothesis that they wished to test, so it is slightly misleading to say that they considered a specific hypothesis. 2. The author revised some uses of the word "yields", but seems to have introduced other instances in the conclusions. This is just a matter of style and personal preference, but for me, saying a calculation yields something makes it sound a bit like the author is pleased with the calculation because it produces the anticipated or desired result. 3. In the acknowledgments, please list my affiliation as "Environment Canada". Francis Zwiers 21 June 2008 ========================== Referee 2 >From my point of view, there were three major issues about the original paper - 1. Its length, 2. The failure to distinguish between the two types of test, 3. The treatment of autocorrelation. On point 1, I still feel the paper is longer than it needs to be, though as far as I can see, I was the only one of the 2 referees + editor to raise that as a serious concern. I appreciate the efforts they have made to remove some tangential material, and it has required some additional writing to incorporate point 2. So, if the editor is happy with that, I'm willing to say OK on that point. On point 2, yes, I'm very satisfied with the work they have done on this. The two types of hypothesis are now clearly distinguished, and the second one is laid out in a way that makes clear both the similarities and differences with the DCPS approach. It's a little odd that the revised test doesn't seem to make any use of the individual-model standard errors, equation (4). Instead, what they do is to compute the sample mean and standard deviation of the estimated model trends, equations (7) and (9) respectively, and then a separate estimate of s{bo}, the standard error of the observational trend. I wondered about this, whether the proposed test would even be correct if the individual-model standard errors were unequal. In fact, if you square both sides of equation (9), the sample variance is an unbiased estimator of the variance of <> even if the individual variances of the model estimates are unequal. So the caveat on page 24, lines 6-9, may not be strictly necessary. I think the test does work (in the form proposed by the authors, not DCPS), but its potential disadvantage is that maybe equation (9) is not actually the most efficient way to estimate the variance of the estimated ensemble mean trend. This might be more of an issue if the authors were trying to do it with a small number of models (3, say), rather than the relatively large 19. The test as proposed is still an order of magnitude improvement on ignoring the observational variance altogether (the DCPS test), but I don't think it's the last word on how to do this kind of inter-model comparison, especially when there are an unequal number of realizations for each model. By the way, this wasn't what my simulation was about. The only point I was trying to make there was to show the potential advantage of taking an ensemble mean viewpoint. That is now clear from the revised paper. There is one point that I only spotted while reading the revision (though it was present in the original version) and I think some clarification from the authors may help. If you read section 4.1, it talks about s{bm} and s{bo} and then it tells you the formula for s{bm}. But there isn't a formula for s{bo}. Of course, s{bo} is calculated exactly the same way as s{bm}, but using the observational rather than the model data. That's obvious to anyone who understands the basic statistics being used here, but since the authors' main point is that DCPS didn't use s{bo} at all, maybe they should take a couple of extra lines to say that explicitly. Regarding the time series autocorrelation issue, I appreciate the authors' putting more work into conducting a sensitivity study where they varied the length of the averaging interval. I have to say, I would have been more impressed if they had conducted a sensitivity study to different formulas for calculating the variance of the trend (such as AR(p) for p>1, or various formulas for approximating the spectral density at frequency zero, such as the Heidelberger-Welsh procedure which is popular in operations research). I think what concerns me about the revision is that there is no mention whatsoever there is a much bigger theory of time series analysis of which the present treatment is very much a special case. For example, what if there is long-range dependence? I'm willing to let go the fact that the proposed method is probably adequate for the particular time series studied in the present paper, but my concern is that I wouldn't want to see the method proposed in this paper become established as the default method of estimating standard errors in climatological time series. The paper as currently written creates the impression that the authors are either unaware of the time series literature or are wilfully ignoring it. As far as a recommendation on the paper is concerned, I'm willing to recommend a provisional acceptance. I would urge the authors to give some further consideration to these points in preparing the final version. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\JOC-production-requ4.doc" 3981. 2008-07-10 14:18:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:18:35 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript]] to: Professor Glenn McGregor Dear Glenn, I thought you might be interested in this email exchange with Francis Zwiers. It's directly relevant to the third criticism raised by Reviewer 2. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- X-Account-Key: account1 Return-Path: Received: from mail-1.llnl.gov ([unix socket]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:08 -0700 Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82]) by mail-1.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m6AK864P023034 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:08:07 -0700 X-Attachments: None X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="21284881" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000"; d="scan'208";a="21284881" Received: from nsziron-2.llnl.gov ([128.115.249.82]) by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:08:06 -0700 X-Attachments: None X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao4AAHkJdkjH1BOCmmdsb2JhbACSJgEBAQEBCAUIBxGfMgE X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5336"; a="42743336" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212390000"; d="scan'208";a="42743336" Received: from ecdow130.tor.ec.gc.ca (HELO OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca) ([199.212.19.130]) by nsziron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 13:07:46 -0700 Received: from OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca ([142.97.202.217]) by OntExch1.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:45 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Subject: RE: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:07:45 -0400 Message-ID: <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC804095CEA@OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <487663E3.1040309@llnl.gov> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] Thread-Index: Acjiw9lJw91pKfupQQOFEbAg5s2/SgAAHtnA References: <48764B2C.5050004@llnl.gov> <33F9E32CDB0917428758DD583E747CC804095CB7@OntExch3.ontario.int.ec.gc.ca> <487663E3.1040309@llnl.gov> From: "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 20:07:45.0611 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E3BB9B0:01C8E2C8] Hi Ben, sure, that would be fine. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] Sent: July 10, 2008 3:33 PM To: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] Subject: Re: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] Dear Francis, Thanks - this information will be extremely helpful in responding to Reviewer 2. I really do feel that the Reviewer is getting overly exercised about a relatively minor technical point. As you note, the key issue is that, in terms of the statistical significance testing, we are making it easier to get a "Douglass-like" result by using an AR-1 model for calculating the adjusted standard errors. I'm concerned that going down the road proposed by Reviewer 2 could leave us open to unjustified criticism. It would be a shame if Douglass et al. argued (erroneously) that our failure to find significant differences between modelled and observed trends was spurious, and arose primarily from use of higher-order autoregressive models for calculating the adjusted standard errors. Would it be o.k. to share your email with Glenn McGregor and with my other coauthors on the paper? Since you've looked at these issues in detail in your previous papers with Thiebaux and with Hans, your comments would be very useful background information for Glenn. With best regards, Ben Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Sorry the 2nd reviewer is being a pain. As you say, there is already > quite a bit of literature on dealing with dependence in tests of the > mean (and this referree would have been critical if this paper had > gone over that ground again :)). > > Regardless, you might be interested in the attached papers. Both > contain relevant information and might help to formulate a response to > the editor. > > Thiebaux and Zwiers show that the equivalent sample size is hard to > estimate well, particularly from small samples. The approach proposed > by the reviewer is what we termed the "ARMA" method, and it produces > equivalent sample size estimates that have unacceptably large RMSE's > when the sample is small, even when the time series in question is not > very persistent (see Table 6). > > Zwiers and von Storch show the performance of an estimator of > equivalent sample size using the approach you use (i.e., assume the > data are AR(1)). They show that the equivalent sample size tends to be > over-estimated (Table 1) particularly when samples are small, and that > the corresponding t-test tends to operate at significance levels above > the nominal level (i.e., rejects too frequently - Table 2). So using > such a test in effect gives those who would like to reject the null > hypothesis a small leg up. > > Directly comparable results are not shown in the two papers, but you > can infer, from the comparison between equivalent sample size results > (Table > 6 in TZ, Table 2 in ZvS) that the "ARMA" approach for estimating > equivalent sample size would be much less reliable than the approach > that you are using (and thus, the sampled series would have to be very > far from being AR(1) for the ARMA approach to be beneficial). The > absolute key is to keep things as parsimonius as possible - there is > simply not enough data to entertain complex models of the > auto-covariance structure. > > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Santer [mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] > Sent: July 10, 2008 1:47 PM > To: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John > Lanzante; ssolomon@frii.com; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; 'Philip D. > Jones'; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin > Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz > Subject: [Fwd: JOC-08-0098.R1 - Decision on Manuscript] > > Dear folks, > > I just returned from my trip to Australia - I had a great time there. > Now (sadly) it's back to the reality of Douglass et al. I'm forwarding > the second set of comments from the two Reviewers. As you'll see, > Reviewer 1 was very happy with the revisions we've made to the paper. > Reviewer 2 was somewhat crankier. The good news is that the editor > (Glenn McGregor) will not send the paper back to Reviewer 2, and is > requesting only minor changes in response to the Reviewer's comments. > > Once again, Reviewer 2 gets hung up on the issue of fitting > higher-order autoregressive models to the temperature time series used in our paper. > As noted in our response to the Reviewer, this is a relatively minor > technical point. The main point is that we include an estimate of the > standard error of the observed trend. DCPS07 do not, which is the main > error in their analysis. > > In calculating modeled and observed standard errors, we assume an AR-1 > model of the regression residuals. This assumption is not unreasonable > for many meteorological time series. We and others have made it in a > number of previous studies. > > Reviewer 2 would have liked us to fit higher-order autoregressive > models to the T2, T2LT, and TS-T2LT time series. This is a difficult > business, particularly given the relatively short length of the time > series available here. There is no easy way to reliably estimate the > parameters of higher-order AR models from 20 to 30 years of data. The > same applies to reliable estimation of the spectral density at > frequency zero (since we have only 2-3 independent samples for > estimating the spectral density at frequency zero). Reviewer 2's > comments are not particularly relevant to the specific problem we are dealing with here. > > It's also worth mentioning that use of higher-order AR models for > estimating trend standard errors would likely lead to SMALLER > effective sample sizes and LARGER standard errors, thus making it even > more difficult to find significant differences between modelled and > observed trends! Our use of an AR-1 model makes it easier for us to > obtain "DCPS07-like" results, and to find significant differences > between modelled and observed trends. DCPS cannot claim, therefore, > that our test somehow stacks the deck in favor of obtaining a > non-significance trend difference - which they might claim if we used > a > (poorly-constrained) higher-order AR model for estimating standard > errors. > > The Reviewer does not want to "see the method proposed in this paper > become established as the default method of estimating standard errors > in climatological time series". We do not claim universal > applicability of our approach. There may well be circumstances in > which it is more appropriate to use higher-order AR models in estimating standard errors. > > I'd be happy to make a statement to this effect in the revised paper. > > I have to confess that I was a little ticked off by Reviewer 2's > comments. The bit about "wilfully ignoring" time series literature was > uncalled for. Together with my former MPI colleague Wolfgang > Brueggemann, I've fooled around with a lot of different methods of > estimating standard errors, in both the time domain and frequency > domain. One could write a whole paper on this subject alone. Such a > paper would not help us to expose the statistical deficiencies in > DCPS07. Nor would in-depth exploration of this issue lead to the > shorter paper requested by the Reviewer. > > It should take me a few days to revise the paper and draft a response > to Reviewer 2's comments. I'll send you the revised paper and draft > response early next week. Slowly but surely, we are getting there! > > 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) 422-3840 > FAX: (925) 422-7675 > email: santer1@llnl.gov > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > ---- > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 138. 2008-07-10 15:42:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "tim Osborn" date: Thu Jul 10 15:42:29 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FOI appeal to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Tim, Not heard anything. Don't think Keith has either. Last year when the then deputy librarian looked through Dave Palmer's files for the earlier request, I was aaked to go and talk to the person in the Library. Don't pass the attached on. It came the other day. I still don't think they have told Keenan, as if they have I would expect this all splashed over CA. It doesn't say much, but for Wei-Chyung Wang it needn't, but I can imagine Keenan and CA not being very impressed. Cheers Phil At 10:32 10/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Keith and Phil, if I remember right, then the decision on Holland's appeal needs to be returned to him in about a week's time. Have you heard anything from Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his decision? Tim Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4416. 2008-07-10 15:42:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: "tim Osborn" date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:42:29 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FOI appeal to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,k.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Tim, Not heard anything. Don't think Keith has either. Last year when the then deputy librarian looked through Dave Palmer's files for the earlier request, I was aaked to go and talk to the person in the Library. Don't pass the attached on. It came the other day. I still don't think they have told Keenan, as if they have I would expect this all splashed over CA. It doesn't say much, but for Wei-Chyung Wang it needn't, but I can imagine Keenan and CA not being very impressed. Cheers Phil At 10:32 10/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi Keith and Phil, > >if I remember right, then the decision on Holland's appeal needs to be >returned to him in about a week's time. Have you heard anything from >Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his >decision? > >Tim Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\080625_Phillip_InterimPresident.pdf" 669. 2008-07-10 15:46:04 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:46:04 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: FOI appeal [FOI_08-23] to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" How appropriate! I was about to email you.... I am in the process of assisting Jonathan with his deliberations and have drafted a response which I will forward to you shortly. I have been in communication with the ICO to get guidance on raising additional exemptions at this point (it's ok), and also with the Met Office who have shared some of their approaches. A key question has arisen on the interpretation of whether we actually 'hold' this information. The full explanation will be in the note I send to Jonathan, but essentially I need to know the corporate interest that UEA has in the emails requested in regards IPCC participation. Recent guidance from the ICO indicates that it could be argued that where a public authority has no interest in information (ie. personal emails), it is not considered to 'hold' that information. The Met Office are claiming that Dr. Mitchell's participation in IPCC was essentially outside it's organisational remit, and any storage of emails was for Dr. Mitchell's personal benefit and nothing to do with the organisation itself. The emails were not created by the Met Office, nor used by the Met Office for it's own purposes. ICO Helpdesk staff indicated that this interpretation, given that the facts were as stated, would find some favour with the ICO. So.... What interest does UEA/CRU have in the IPCC correspondence and work that you are doing? Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:34 PM >To: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: Re: FOI appeal > >no have not heard , will forward this to Dave >cheers >Keith > >At 10:32 10/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >>Hi Keith and Phil, >> >>if I remember right, then the decision on Holland's appeal needs to be >>returned to him in about a week's time. Have you heard anything from >>Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his >>decision? >> >>Tim > >-- >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/ > > 2926. 2008-07-10 16:02:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:02:37 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution to: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Gents, A copy of what was sent to Jonathan. Please note that the opinion from the Met Office quoted below is subject to lawyer-client privilege and should not be shared outside the group that has now seen it. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) Subject: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft Importance: High Jonathan, A draft response for your review and comment. I have been in contact with the ICO who are of the opinion that, if we feel that there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the first review of the request, they should be raised at this stage. I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names of correspondents are redacted, there is enough information in what's left to reveal the identity of individuals. If what is left is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is whether what is left qualifies as personal data.... Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the disclosure of this information would clearly "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice... the effective conduct of public affairs". This section, as I read it, does not limit the provision of advice or exchange of views to inside an organisation. I have been in touch with Lucy to determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' (i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. There is an additional argument that we might wish to make. I have been in touch with the Met Office that have received a similar request. They have been in touch with the ICO and are making the argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them at all! The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the ICO indicates that information in which the institution has no interest but physically possesses, is not 'held' by them for the purposes of the Act. Guidance states: "In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest in this information and will make disclosure decisions. This is because although ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority with whom the information has been deposited effectively controls the information and holds it in its own right. It will therefore be difficult to argue that the information is merely held on behalf of another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the public authority itself." And "There will be cases where such information is simply held on behalf of a third party, for example for preservation or security purposes. Perhaps the public authority may be holding the information as part of a service (whether for gain or otherwise) to the depositor. Although this information is in the possession of a public authority, it does not fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no interest in it." And finally in regards personal emails in general "In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in the workplace would not be held by the authority as it has no interest in them. It will be a question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold them, dependent on the level of access and control it has over the e mail system and on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception rather than the rule that the public authority does hold them." I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that sets out their argument along these lines; and further an assertion that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts of their particular case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by them). To quote the internal briefing note "...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect of the specific functions of the Met Office. It was aligned with them but not a function of the Met Office. The whole purpose of the IPCC is that it is independent and objective." The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was in a pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative of the Met Office and the IPCC work was not Met Office work. What it comes down to is our corporate interest in this IPCC correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by us. I have emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this .. .but your feeling? Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after our re-assertion of our primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we would need to have a position on it's disclosure. Cheers, Dave <> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Appeal_review_draft.doc" 4334. 2008-07-10 16:22:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:22:24 +0100 (BST) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: Re: FOI appeal to: "Phil Jones" Phil -- thanks for this. I expect they will request the "Report of the Investigation Committee" under the US FOI act next! Tim On Thu, July 10, 2008 3:42 pm, Phil Jones wrote: > > Tim, > Not heard anything. Don't think Keith has either. > > Last year when the then deputy librarian looked through Dave Palmer's > files for the earlier request, I was aaked to go and talk to the person > in the Library. > > Don't pass the attached on. It came the other day. I still don't > think they > have told Keenan, as if they have I would expect this all splashed over > CA. > It doesn't say much, but for Wei-Chyung Wang it needn't, but I can > imagine > Keenan and CA not being very impressed. > > Cheers > Phil > > At 10:32 10/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >>Hi Keith and Phil, >> >>if I remember right, then the decision on Holland's appeal needs to be >>returned to him in about a week's time. Have you heard anything from >>Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his >>decision? >> >>Tim > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5264. 2008-07-10 17:19:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Jul 10 17:19:13 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AW: my definite draft version posed to discussion, to: David Frank David, The Pyrenees record sounds a useful inclusion - they aren't that far from the Alps. I'm keen to only use results from papers that have produced a reconstruction. I'm aware of what Keith and Tom are doing here with others from the old project, but this work is still ongoing. So maybe you can send the Pyrenees reconstruction, or should I contact Ulf. Reinhard is supposed to be sending me some more series he has collected. This may include the lakes stuff you mention. Rob Wilson's work if there is a reconstruction would be useful. Smoothing the series highlights the differences more than the plot in your abstract where the interannual timescale is highlighted. Cheers Phil At 17:03 09/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Perhaps other T-records not on the list might include: Rob Wilson's compilation for the Alps used in D'Arrigo et al. 2006 and additional glacial records from Haberli/Holzhauser. I guess Keith and Tom were working towards putting together lots of long-term tree-ring data including material from the WSL, Grabner & Nicolussi (Austria), Urbinati/Carrer (Italy) for a definitive Alpine tree-ring reconstruction. Either such a composite or some of these individual records should be included. If not loosing the spatial focus to much for you, it might also be reasonable to consider Ulf's new reconstruction for the Pyrenees (in press at Clim Dyn). There is a a bunch of stuff from lakes recently published (Alex Blass / Martin Grosjean), but i am not too familiar with this. We are currently producing a composite record of different MXD chronologies (Ulf's Lötschental, the old Lauenen record, and some newer data from Kurt Nicolussi from Tirol - Keith and Tom have these records) but focusing on extremes rather than long-term variations. The goal is to compare this with Pfisters work. Giovanna Battipaglia (a post doc) is working on this. Many people are starting to measure longer isotope series from tree-rings. However, I am not sure if /when these might turn into formal climate reconstructions.... Not sure if this helps much. At least the list of "usual suspects" is slowly lengthening with time! I attach an abstract that i put together for a meeting. This was closely related to some text/work that i did in thinking about the proxy-instrumental comparisons and Reinhards current paper. cheers, David At 15:22 Uhr +0100 9.7.2008, Phil Jones wrote: David, I have plans to write-up what was planned at the end of ALP-IMP. This was what was in WP9. I have a draft paper from almost 2 years ago. Reinhard is going to send me all the proxy data/sources that he has collected in the last year or so. I still have Dimitrios here and he has started doing some plots and correlations. For trees we have the series from Ulf's papers which have publication dates in 2005 and 2006. Are there others that we should be using? I wanted to mainly stick to the GAR and continental Europe. Not keen to go much further afield with more distant proxies. Also trying to stick to the period since 1500. Apart from Ulf's series we also have the grape-harvest dates from Meier and Chiune et al, Jurg Luterbacher's reconstructions, Mangini et al's stalagmite and also the Oerlemans reconstruction based on glacier lengths. If there are others you think we should be using, can you point us to papers or to the data. Cheers Phil At 14:37 09/07/2008, David Frank wrote: Hi Reinhard et al. I made some additional suggestions /sentence shortenings for your final consideration. I too am happy for you to submit, but let me know if i can be of further help. I guess you have avoided any discussion about the larger-scale implications from this work. If you and Phil don't have larger plans in this direction, it might be reasonable to include this in the discussion and abstract. Its an honor to be involved with this work/collaboration. I've enjoyed and learned a lot! best wishes, David At 13:45 Uhr +0100 8.7.2008, Phil Jones wrote: Reinhard, A few minor changes. The one sentence in green in the small file needs more work. Happy for you to submit when ready. Cheers Phil At 15:43 07/07/2008, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Dear Michele, Thanks for your input. I have changed Fig.14 according to your suggestion (without ISAC-ori now), have changed also the respective sentence where ISAC-oris are addressed and have included your new passage about the ISAC series. Have a look at the attached respective passage, all in green is new. Thank You also for the Meier et all correction, I have received the true reference from Jürg Luterbacher already. Ciao Reinhard -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: michele [[1]mailto:m.brunetti@isac.cnr.it] Gesendet: Montag, 07. Juli 2008 15:25 An: David Frank Cc: Phil Jones; Reinhard Boehm; 'michele'; 'Maurizio Maugeri'; johann.hiebl@zamg.ac.at Betreff: Re: my definite draft version posed to discussion, correcting and completing Dear Reinhard, Here is a suggestion to change the description of what we did with our series (it is only one line longer than yours!): Only Italian series were used for homogeneity testing and adjusting, the basis were minimum and maximum temperature series and the homogenization was "nearer to metadata" and verified at each step by checking its effect on daily temperature range series to avoid undue corrections. As far as figure 14 is concerned, I suggest to eliminate the orange curve, i.e. the ISAC-original, this is the only non-homogenized series we show and I think it makes confusion: you say that it is well within the range of the other regional series [in the EIP], but you don't highlight that it is colder in the recent half century. I think that this can confuse the reader, i.e. he can understand that the non-homogenized series and the EIP-corrected one are in good agreement, but this is not true (thik balck and orange are very different). Finally, Meier et al. (2008), in the introduction is Meier et al. (2007), GRL vol. 34 issue 20 L20705. Ciao Michele On Fri, Jul 04, 2008 at 05:58:24PM +0200, David Frank wrote: Dear Reinhard, Phil, et al. In catching up with emails, it seems like the manuscript is close to a nice and final state. I am fine with Reinhards suggestion to co-ordinate a last read through with Phil. I will be away until Tuesday, so would then be happy to work on the manuscript mid-week. Some quick thoughts: I agree with Phil's suggestion to tune figure 14 (given an EPS, i can do this too). Perhaps, e.g., the non EI corrected series could be denoted as dashed and each panel to span the entire width of a page. Also, the final paragraph of the conclusions might fit more nicely in the discussion. The manuscript could then end more generally about remaining uncertainties in the Alpine records and also larger-scale implications (e.g. Parker 1994). Have a good weekend. cheers, David At 9:28 Uhr +0100 4.7.2008, Phil Jones wrote: Reinhard, Here's a revised version with a concluding section. You will likely want to alter some of the conclusions as I may not have emphasized the right things. I suspect the bit at the end with the Italian adjustments from Michele and Maurizio could do with some tightening up. Figure 14 is crucial to the paper. Is it possible that this can be clearer? The black line dominates. Perhaps the black line should be grey, with Inge's 2007 curve being a lighter colour. Perhaps also it might be better with a legend, so readers can see the colours rather than trying to relate your colour words in the caption to those in the plot. Maybe I should get a better colour printer! One other thing just noticed, CRUtem2v should be CRUTEM2v. The WP9 paper will contain lots of plots that Dimitrios is doing comparing with the proxy data - ALP-IMP and others, so this paper will have many more authors than this one. I'm here next week for one more look through if needed. Visitors the rest of the day and have to move compost bins in the garden at the weekend. Cheers Phil At 15:09 03/07/2008, Reinhard Boehm wrote: Dear all, Find attached my definite draft of our common paper. I now have to concentrate on other things to be done, and I hope to receive your input to produce a final version until July 15th (latest). I have completed the main part of the paper, have inserted Phil s summary I received a minute ago and have left undone only the conclusions. I have also inserted all so far received corrections and have tried to follow your remarks. I address Phil first. He has announced to be at CRU these two weeks and has reserved some time for our paper. It would be fine to receive also a conclusion from him. And please Phil, have a look at the three passages marked in green: I had some troubles there to follow your remarks, but I have produced something new which may be better now, but I believe it needs your input. It would be fine to have David for a general language correction, e.g. also the claimed shorter sentences if necessary. Is this possible? Maybe after Phil having done his work in order not to produce a mess of different versions. Pleas Phil and David discuss and decide about that among yourselves. Maurizio and Michele are kindly asked to tell if my short passage introducing and discussing the ISAC-version suits your conception. Please note that we currently are rather precisely at the maximum size planned for the Millennium paper (40 double spaced pages including all tables and figures). I have already slightly shortened my part, and I am afraid we do not have enough place for the entire passage Maurizio sent, all the more then we should also say more about the Swedish series and the other comparative series of Fig. 14. Please send me your inputs until end of next week latest to allow us to produce the final version in the style Climatic Change wants us to do (all figures are already present in the 600dpi version ready for printing, but I did not insert them into the attached version to keep the doc file in reasonable size.) I hope you all can say yes to what I have produced and do not want to withdraw your names from the author s list. I have avoided to include more pages and more co-authors by excluding the proxies more or less and also the modelling and forcing passage. This does not mean that I do not think that a follow-up with a wider comparison of instrumental and proxy evidence available in the region. Whether this will be part of Phil s planned WP-9 paper of ALP-IMP or whether this will develop into a separate paper is left to Phil s > decision. Best regards And do not hesitate to communicate also with me in the next days (I am still here at the institute until 17th July and am very interested in finishing this before). 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment converted: MacDave:draft-2008-07-04 1.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0020AFED) -- Dr. Michele Brunetti ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ISAC - CNR Via Gobetti, 101 I-40129 Bologna ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ph +39 051 6399623 Fax +39 051 6399658 Mailto: m.brunetti@isac.cnr.it ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Personal web page: [2]http://www.isac.cnr.it/~climstor/michele/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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: MacDave:draft-2008-07-06 1.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0020CB7D) Attachment converted: MacDave:Micheles-correction-#20CB7E.doc (WDBN/«IC») (0020CB7E) Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 906. 2008-07-11 09:30:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 11 09:30:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: AW: my definite draft version posed to discussion, to: d.efthymiadis@uea.ac.uk And the other one. Phil Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:14:18 +0200 To: Phil Jones From: David Frank Subject: Re: AW: my definite draft version posed to discussion, correcting and completing Cc: ulf.buentgen@wsl.ch, Rob Wilson X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 1586221, limit: 153600) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Hi Phil, (cc: Ulf, Rob) The Pyrenees record and preprint are attached. Although this was not treated as a regional reconstruction publication, i would contact Rob to see about including t(his) Alpine record. Agreed about the smoothing. Thanks. Interestingly, simple and not often thought about decisions (e.g, fit first and then smooth or vice versa) often have non-trivial consequences. cheers, David cc. Ulf, Rob David, The Pyrenees record sounds a useful inclusion - they aren't that far from the Alps. I'm keen to only use results from papers that have produced a reconstruction. I'm aware of what Keith and Tom are doing here with others from the old project, but this work is still ongoing. So maybe you can send the Pyrenees reconstruction, or should I contact Ulf. Reinhard is supposed to be sending me some more series he has collected. This may include the lakes stuff you mention. Rob Wilson's work if there is a reconstruction would be useful. Smoothing the series highlights the differences more than the plot in your abstract where the interannual timescale is highlighted. Cheers Phil At 17:03 09/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Perhaps other T-records not on the list might include: Rob Wilson's compilation for the Alps used in D'Arrigo et al. 2006 and additional glacial records from Haberli/Holzhauser. I guess Keith and Tom were working towards putting together lots of long-term tree-ring data including material from the WSL, Grabner & Nicolussi (Austria), Urbinati/Carrer (Italy) for a definitive Alpine tree-ring reconstruction. Either such a composite or some of these individual records should be included. If not loosing the spatial focus to much for you, it might also be reasonable to consider Ulf's new reconstruction for the Pyrenees (in press at Clim Dyn). There is a a bunch of stuff from lakes recently published (Alex Blass / Martin Grosjean), but i am not too familiar with this. We are currently producing a composite record of different MXD chronologies (Ulf's Lötschental, the old Lauenen record, and some newer data from Kurt Nicolussi from Tirol - Keith and Tom have these records) but focusing on extremes rather than long-term variations. The goal is to compare this with Pfisters work. Giovanna Battipaglia (a post doc) is working on this. Many people are starting to measure longer isotope series from tree-rings. However, I am not sure if /when these might turn into formal climate reconstructions.... Not sure if this helps much. At least the list of "usual suspects" is slowly lengthening with time! I attach an abstract that i put together for a meeting. This was closely related to some text/work that i did in thinking about the proxy-instrumental comparisons and Reinhards current paper. cheers, David At 15:22 Uhr +0100 9.7.2008, Phil Jones wrote: David, I have plans to write-up what was planned at the end of ALP-IMP. This was what was in WP9. I have a draft paper from almost 2 years ago. Reinhard is going to send me all the proxy data/sources that he has collected in the last year or so. I still have Dimitrios here and he has started doing some plots and correlations. For trees we have the series from Ulf's papers which have publication dates in 2005 and 2006. Are there others that we should be using? I wanted to mainly stick to the GAR and continental Europe. Not keen to go much further afield with more distant proxies. Also trying to stick to the period since 1500. Apart from Ulf's series we also have the grape-harvest dates from Meier and Chiune et al, Jurg Luterbacher's reconstructions, Mangini et al's stalagmite and also the Oerlemans reconstruction based on glacier lengths. If there are others you think we should be using, can you point us to papers or to the 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3539. 2008-07-11 10:54:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri Jul 11 10:54:58 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Dave et al, One minor comment on the letter, then some thoughts on the stance the Met Office might be or are taking. First, there is an extra 'be' on the 6th line of the para beginning 'Further,..' Now the issue of the specific functions of the Met Office. This argument would also apply to UEA and to CRU/ENV, probably more so, as UEA is more independent (of government) than the Met Office. I say this as DEFRA fund the Met Office to the tune of about £18M per year. I am on the Hadley Centre's Scientific Review Group and have reviewed the DEFRA proposal. Throughout the documents I get for the annual Review Group meetings and in the proposal, there is a constant thread of how the work they are doing is essential for IPCC. How this works though is that their scientists (just like us) write papers for the peer-review literature, and these get referred to in the IPCC Reports. DEFRA expects that their scientists will be involved in the IPCC Chapter writing. DEFRA has also funded the Met Office to run the Technical Support Unit of Working Group 2 of IPCC. So, although IPCC work may not be a specific function of the Met Office, it is very much expected by DEFRA that they are heavily involved in IPCC. The Met Office and its Hadley Centre are happy to accept the kudos IPCC gets - especially the Nobel Peace Prize award in 2007 for IPCC itself. At least two people from the Met Office were at the award ceremony in Oslo - and only 25 in total were allowed to go. If the Met Office can or are using this argument, then UEA could as well. Whether we should is another matter. Individual scientists at UEA are free to get involved in IPCC writing teams, and from the VC downwards (through the Dean of Science and the Head of School in ENV) would expect us to get involved. It is not written in any job description, but it is one of the unwritten expected things academics ought to do. Keith and I use the involvement when we write letters each to the ENV promotion committee to get a pay increment, as I expect all the others in ENV who have been involved in IPCC do. UEA also takes the kudos from the report coming out and many in ENV have nice certificates recording the Nobel Peace prize award last year. Involvement in IPCC and the Nobel Peace Prize features strongly in the ENV Annual Report. Like the Met Office we also use the IPCC involvement when writing proposals. We're not paid to do IPCC, just like the Met Office scientists. We're paid expenses (by DEFRA) to go to the meetings and write the reports. Keith and I did much of this at weekends and evenings, but much also during work time and we used UEA resources to print out drafts. The work took time and we are paid by UEA, so UEA did subsidize us to do it. I have to admit that I like the argument, but would appreciate Michael's views and also Jonathan's as to whether we should. It might be worth discussing it with the Dean of Science of the HoS in ENV, as it could be construed by many to be a very odd argument to make. It certainly would close the door on this request, and set a precedent for any further requests when the next IPCC report comes along in 5-6 years time. Holland's requests are certainly different from those that came last year. If we do use this argument, then it ought to go where you say - after the re-assertion. A quick look at the Climate Audit web site would indicate that the Met Office have yet to respond in this way, but they may not have used such clear language (the blue) in your email. If we both respond in this way, CA will claim we have colluded! A final point. It is likely that a number of people in ENV will become involved in IPCC next time. I wouldn't want any disclosure to jeopardize future involvement, if others who are involved in IPCC future think working with UEA people could be a liability. This is sort of covered in your final principal paragraph. Cheers Phil At 16:02 10/07/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Gents, A copy of what was sent to Jonathan. Please note that the opinion from the Met Office quoted below is subject to lawyer-client privilege and should not be shared outside the group that has now seen it. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) Subject: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft Importance: High Jonathan, A draft response for your review and comment. I have been in contact with the ICO who are of the opinion that, if we feel that there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the first review of the request, they should be raised at this stage. I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names of correspondents are redacted, there is enough information in what's left to reveal the identity of individuals. If what is left is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is whether what is left qualifies as personal data. Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the disclosure of this information would clearly "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs". This section, as I read it, does not limit the provision of advice or exchange of views to inside an organisation. I have been in touch with Lucy to determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' (i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. There is an additional argument that we might wish to make. I have been in touch with the Met Office that have received a similar request. They have been in touch with the ICO and are making the argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them at all! The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the ICO indicates that information in which the institution has no interest but physically possesses, is not 'held' by them for the purposes of the Act. Guidance states: "In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest in this information and will make disclosure decisions. This is because although ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority with whom the information has been deposited effectively controls the information and holds it in its own right. It will therefore be difficult to argue that the information is merely held on behalf of another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the public authority itself." And "There will be cases where such information is simply held on behalf of a third party, for example for preservation or security purposes. Perhaps the public authority may be holding the information as part of a service (whether for gain or otherwise) to the depositor. Although this information is in the possession of a public authority, it does not fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no interest in it." And finally in regards personal emails in general "In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in the workplace would not be held by the authority as it has no interest in them. It will be a question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold them, dependent on the level of access and control it has over the e mail system and on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception rather than the rule that the public authority does hold them." I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that sets out their argument along these lines; and further an assertion that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts of their particular case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by them). To quote the internal briefing note "...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect of the specific functions of the Met Office. It was aligned with them but not a function of the Met Office. The whole purpose of the IPCC is that it is independent and objective." The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was in a pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative of the Met Office and the IPCC work was not Met Office work. What it comes down to is our corporate interest in this IPCC correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by us. I have emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this .. .but your feeling? Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after our re-assertion of our primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we would need to have a position on it's disclosure. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1221. 2008-07-11 15:24:59 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:24:59 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: Phil Jones , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" Dear Dave, many thanks for your emails. Regarding the five possible exemptions: (1) I'm certainly happy if Jonathan Colam supports the original two exemptions (the confidentiality and the time limit) in his judgement. (2) Of the possible three new ones, I think the exemption s.36 that disclosure would inhibit free and frank exchange of views etc. really matches very well how I feel about the whole issue! This (plus the confidentiality) seem to be the strongest arguments. (3) Exemption s.40 about whether the material contains personal information seems (from my relative ignorance of these matters!) to be difficult to support while at the same time relying on the time limit exemption -- I thought that the time spent checking all the material for such personal info and redacting it was a major component in exceeding the 18 hour limit. If it is redacted, then surely what's left is no longer personal? Unless people's opinions on certain science matters can be considered "personal"? Anyway, I'll leave this one to the FOIA specialists! (4) The possibility of following the Met Office's lead and claiming that UEA has no interest in the material and therefore doesn't actually "hold" it, seems difficult to argue. I agree with Phil's comments about the evidence against making this argument. To answer your direct question to us, "What interest does UEA/CRU have in the IPCC correspondence and work that you are doing?" I would say it has great interest in the outcome of the correspondence and work. Does this mean that it has an interest in how we got there? Well I certainly did not have to get any formal UEA approval for, or oversight of, what I was doing/writing, so perhaps you could argue that my actions (and hence correspondence etc.) were not formally of interest to UEA, even though UEA are keen to take credit for the outcome. However, it is hard to win a public argument along these lines, even if it could be won legally! So, my feeling is to steer clear of this. But again, I'm happy to leave it to FOIA specialists. Thanks again, Tim At 10:54 11/07/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > Dave et al, > One minor comment on the letter, then some thoughts on the > stance the Met Office might be or are taking. > First, there is an extra 'be' on the 6th line of the para > beginning 'Further,..' > > Now the issue of the specific functions of the Met Office. This argument > would also apply to UEA and to CRU/ENV, probably more so, as UEA > is more independent (of government) than the Met Office. I say this as DEFRA > fund the Met Office to the tune of about £18M per year. I am on the Hadley > Centre's Scientific Review Group and have reviewed the DEFRA > proposal. Throughout > the documents I get for the annual Review Group meetings and in > the proposal, there is a constant thread of how the work they are doing is > essential for IPCC. How this works though is that their scientists > (just like us) > write papers for the peer-review literature, and these get > referred to in the > IPCC Reports. DEFRA expects that their scientists will be involved in the > IPCC Chapter writing. DEFRA has also funded the Met Office to run the > Technical Support Unit of Working Group 2 of IPCC. > > So, although IPCC work may not be a specific function of the Met Office, > it is very much expected by DEFRA that they are heavily involved in IPCC. > The Met Office and its Hadley Centre are happy to accept the kudos > IPCC gets - especially the Nobel Peace Prize award in 2007 for IPCC itself. > At least two people from the Met Office were at the award ceremony in Oslo > - and only 25 in total were allowed to go. > > If the Met Office can or are using this argument, then UEA could as well. > Whether we should is another matter. Individual scientists at UEA are free > to get involved in IPCC writing teams, and from the VC downwards (through > the Dean of Science and the Head of School in ENV) would expect us > to get involved. It is not written in any job description, but it is one of > the unwritten expected things academics ought to do. Keith and I use > the involvement when we write letters each to the ENV promotion > committee to get a pay increment, as I expect all the others in ENV > who have been involved in IPCC do. UEA also takes the kudos from the > report coming out and many in ENV have nice certificates recording the > Nobel Peace prize award last year. Involvement in IPCC and the Nobel > Peace Prize features strongly in the ENV Annual Report. Like the > Met Office we also use the IPCC involvement when writing proposals. > > We're not paid to do IPCC, just like the Met Office scientists. We're > paid expenses (by DEFRA) to go to the meetings and write the reports. > Keith and I did much of this at weekends and evenings, but much also > during work time and we used UEA resources to print out drafts. The work > took time and we are paid by UEA, so UEA did subsidize us to do it. > > I have to admit that I like the argument, but would appreciate Michael's > views and also Jonathan's as to whether we should. It might be worth > discussing it with the Dean of Science of the HoS in ENV, as it could > be construed by many to be a very odd argument to make. It > certainly would close > the door on this request, and set a precedent for any further requests when > the next IPCC report comes along in 5-6 years time. Holland's > requests are certainly > different from those that came last year. > > If we do use this argument, then it ought to go where you say - after > the re-assertion. > > A quick look at the Climate Audit web site would indicate that > the Met Office > have yet to respond in this way, but they may not have used such clear > language (the blue) in your email. If we both respond in this way, CA will > claim we have colluded! > > A final point. It is likely that a number of people in ENV will > become involved > in IPCC next time. I wouldn't want any disclosure to jeopardize > future involvement, > if others who are involved in IPCC future think working with UEA people > could be a liability. This is sort of covered in your final > principal paragraph. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 16:02 10/07/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, >>A copy of what was sent to Jonathan. Please note that the opinion >>from the Met Office quoted below is subject to lawyer-client >>privilege and should not be shared outside the group that has now seen it. >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >>______________________________________________ >>From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM >>To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) >>Subject: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal >>resolution draft >>Importance: High >> >>Jonathan, >>A draft response for your review and comment. I have been in >>contact with the ICO who are of the opinion that, if we feel that >>there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the first review of the >>request, they should be raised at this stage. >> >>I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names >>of correspondents are redacted, there is enough information in >>what's left to reveal the identity of individuals. If what is left >>is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is whether what >>is left qualifies as personal data…. >> >>Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the >>disclosure of this information would clearly "in the reasonable >>opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the free and frank >>provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for >>the purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice… the >>effective conduct of public affairs". This section, as I read it, >>does not limit the provision of advice or exchange of views to >>inside an organisation. I have been in touch with Lucy to >>determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' >>(i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. >> >>There is an additional argument that we might wish to make. I have >>been in touch with the Met Office that have received a similar >>request. They have been in touch with the ICO and are making the >>argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them at >>all! The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the >>ICO indicates that information in which the institution has no >>interest but physically possesses, is not 'held' by them for the >>purposes of the Act. Guidance states: >> >>"In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest >>in this information and will make disclosure decisions. This is >>because although >> >>ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority >>with whom the information has been deposited effectively controls >>the information and holds it in its own right. It will therefore be >>difficult to argue that the information is merely held on behalf of >>another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the >>public authority itself." >> >>And >> >>"There will be cases where such information is simply held on >>behalf of a third party, for example for preservation or security >>purposes. Perhaps the public >> >>authority may be holding the information as part of a service >>(whether for gain or otherwise) to the depositor. Although this >>information is in the possession of a public authority, it does not >>fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no >>interest in it." >> >>And finally in regards personal emails in general >> >>"In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in >>the workplace would not be held by the authority as it has no >>interest in them. It will be a >> >>question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold >>them, dependent on the level of access and control it has over the >>e mail system and >> >>on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception >>rather than the rule that the public authority does hold them." >> >>I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that >>sets out their argument along these lines; and further an assertion >>that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts of their particular >>case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by them). To >>quote the internal briefing note >> >>"...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect >>of the specific functions of the Met Office. It was aligned with >>them but not a function of the Met Office. The whole purpose of >>the IPCC is that it is independent and objective." >> >> The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was >> in a pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative >> of the Met Office and the IPCC work was not Met Office work. What >> it comes down to is our corporate interest in this IPCC >> correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by >> us. I have emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this >> .. .but your feeling? >> >>Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after >>our re-assertion of our primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO >>does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we would need to >>have a position on it's disclosure. >> >>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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 3404. 2008-07-11 16:06:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ian Harris ,Phil Jones date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:06:10 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: PhD at UEA to: "Jon Moore" At 16:17 09/07/2008, you wrote: >Hi Tim > >Thanks for the email. Yes, I got the PhD at Exeter with Peter Cox so >I'll be heading there in September. Thanks for asking, I had forgot to >notify you that I had a position. Thanks -- and best of luck with it! >By the way do you know who at the climate unit handles the CRU TS 3.0 >precipitation database? I've been using it in my dissertation on the >affect of rainfall in determining forest fires in Borneo and I have to >refer to previous work that used the older CRU TS 2.1 database and >wondered if there is much difference in the interpolation between the >two datasets? Ian Harris (Harry), Phil Jones and myself are involved in various ways with th CRU TS 3.0. As far as I know, the interpolation method was the same in v3.0 as it was in v2.1. The input data may have been different though. This wasn't simply an update for recent years, but also some earlier years may change if we had received additional observational data or if our earlier data had been altered by new quality control efforts. Is Allan Spessa involved with your dissertation? We recently sent him the individual rain gauge records that we've used in our interpolation for this region. We could send them to you, or you could just ask Allan for them, if they would be useful? Hope that helps, 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 672. 2008-07-11 17:02:24 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones ,"Elly Reynolds" date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:02:24 +0100 from: Clare Goodess subject: Re: Ian Harris to: Tim Osborn ,"Janice Darch" Yes - the extra two months, now November/December come from R14702. Clare At 16:55 11/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Hi Janice, > >it does seem simpler if Harry stays on R14433 until the 31-Oct-2008, >as originally planned -- i.e. leave as it is. Then he can be paid >from Phil's USDoE grant (is that R14702 ?) for 1-Nov-2008 to 31-Dec-2008. > >Phil and I will then arrange amongst ourselves exactly when Harry >will do our various pieces of work within these periods. > >Tim > >At 16:16 11/07/2008, you wrote: >>Hi Tim, >>Do you want me to go ahead with what we discussed leave as is and >>add R14702? >>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: "Tim Osborn" >>To: "Janice Darch" ; "Elly Reynolds" >> >>Cc: "Clare Goodess" >>Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 4:44 PM >>Subject: Ian Harris >> >> >>>Dear Elly and Janice, >>> >>>Clare has given me a copy of your email about Harry's (Ian >>>Harris') salary, currently being paid from R14433, indicating that >>>there are insufficient funds to pay him for the 18 months that was >>>costed for in the proposal. >>> >>>Do you know how this has come about? Is it something I've >>>done? There is a full 18-months worth of work to do, yet somehow >>>only money for about 17 months of his salary. >>> >>>If it isn't anything that I've caused, then I would request that >>>the shortfall be made up from the 6063.31 GBP that is listed for >>>"S & C staff", which I guess is the IT support? This way Harry >>>can do the full 18 months work that is needed to complete the project. >>> >>>So, is it possible to identify how the shortfall has arisen? >>> >>>Many thanks >>> >>>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 > >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 2928. 2008-07-11 17:27:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 11 17:27:35 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: URGENT: Review of Nature manuscript 2008-05-04767A to: f.fornasier@nature.com Faye things have been very hectic for me and I am sorry it has taken some time to do this . I have really had to study it and several associated papers before coming to this conclusion. My overall opinion is reject. There is little I believe that is significant here , and a lot of implied significance and absence of clear interpretation of the results. There is also a "new" approach to processing data hidden in the supplementary material but this is not relevant to the substance of the paper as the later processing negates the need to use it in the end anyway. The following section may be copied to the authors but I prefer to remain anonymous . I appreciate your offer to copy this review into the system for me - as I am really overloaded with stuff, I accept. Please acknowledge receipt thanks again Keith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Comments to be passed to the authors on Non-uniform interhemispheric temperature trends over the past 550 years By R. Duncan et al The basic message proposed by the authors in this manuscript is that the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature varies, largely out of phase, with annual average Southern Hemisphere temperatures on a characteristic timescale of about 30-60 years. One might query whether this is saying much of interest, but the authors couch this result in the context of statements about the roles of natural versus anthropogenically driven inter-hemispheric temperature differences. If the paper was to provide insight into the specific role of tropospheric aerosols and the validity of the way they have been included in IPCC AR4 models to achieve greater consistency between observed temperatures and forced GCM model experiments then this would provide a strong case for publication. However, I do not feel that the manuscript does anything like this . Nor does the manuscript really confirm that an understanding of the workings of the IPO or AMO are critical for understanding and modelling future climate changes to any greater degree than was already understood on the basis of instrumental analyses or model experiments. The primary mode of instrumental temperature variability across both the North and South Hemispheres over the 20^th century, comprises the 3-stage wide-scale warming illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of Parker et al. (2007). Understanding of regional and decadal-scale differences in temperature changes over land and ocean and between North and South are relevant for framing uncertainties in attribution studies and projections of likely warming rates, their significance on decadal scales should not be overstated. For example, the variance explained by the AMO and IPO in large-scale analyses of instrumental temperature variability in the 20^th century is on the order of a few per cent (e.g. Parker et al., 2007). This paper is not able to advance our understanding of the causes or even quantify the changing amplitude of the IPO or AMO or the net effect of their combined influence over time. Looking at the new data the authors present, it is not clear to me that the evidence for out of phase cycling between the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions and the New Zealand reconstructions is particularly strong or constant over the whole length of the series. Any (even white-noise) bandpass filtered data series , when superimposed, would show periods of in phase and out of phase behaviour. The series shown by the authors are out of phase sometimes and not at others. We can deduce little about the past behaviour of the IPO or AMO for either circumstance. The characterisation of the dominant multi-decadal patterns of variability of the so-called IPO varies in spatial signature and temporal importance depending on whether SST or NMAT data are used as the basis data set (e.g. see Figure 3 of Parker et al., 2007 quoted by authors). Regardless of which are used the relationships between New Zealand temperature variations and temperatures in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, associated with changing IPO status are complex (and possibly seasonally dependent). This suggests that using New Zealand as a surrogate for mean Southern Hemisphere temperatures on the decadal timescale, may be unfounded. The authors imply that their data are being used to imply details of contrasting temperature trends between the northern and southern hemispheres and that these data are the only data available to compare against the northern hemisphere average data. While it is true that instrumental data show the AMO and IPO to be negatively correlated with New Zealand temperatures, temperatures in other areas of the Southern Hemisphere are not. The authors do not present a formal phase analysis or, for that matter, compare their New Zealand bandpassed data with those from temperature series representing other regions of the Southern Hemisphere that do exist (in South America, Tasmania and even New Zealand i.e. as published by Cook and colleagues). The work by Cook has specifically pointed out a characteristic peak in the variance spectrum at around 30-60 years in Tasmanian temperature and he carried out an analysis of its changing significance through time using singular spectrum analysis. A similar detailed formal comparison of the covariance between the various available Southern Hemisphere data (and the Northern Hemisphere data) seems justified. Personally, I consider the plots of the Wavelet spectra shown in Supplementary Figure 1 of little value in this regard. It is true that Figure 2 of the manuscript, at first sight, appears to show an intriguing, even compelling, correlation between the series representing the sum of the IPO and AMO and the Northern Hemisphere/New Zealand temperature difference (specifically Figure 2c). However, previous analyses of instrumental data show New Zealand temperatures to be negatively correlated with each of (and so also the sum of ) the IPO and AMO. As these modes describe contrasting temperatures in the North and South Hemispheres it is to be expected that the Northern Hemisphere minus New Zealand temperature ( or estimated temperature fitted against it) will correlate positively . In summary I just can not see that there is enough new information or new insight provided in this manuscript to support publication. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ At 11:33 08/07/2008, you wrote: Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 1187 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Professor Briffa I am writing in reference to the manuscript by Dr Duncan and co-authors entitled Non-uniform interhemispheric temperature trends over the past 550 years.. It has now been a number of weeks since we sent this manuscript to you for your comments, but we have not yet received your review. Your comments on this manuscript are valued; however, it is of the utmost importance that we receive them as soon as possible to prevent any further delay in making a decision on this manuscript. You can view the manuscript and complete the review form by clicking on the link below: <[1]http://mts-nature.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A5K1CWs3A7fHu6J2A9roFjn4Z8ixN3Vtrd hAsjAZ> Alternatively, if it would be more convenient, you may send your review directly to me by return email. In this case, please highlight which comments are confidential and which should be passed on to the authors. General information for peer-reviewers is at [2]www.nature.com/nature/authors/referees/index.html. We look forward to receiving your comments very soon. Yours sincerely Faye Fornasier Staff Nature This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS -- 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/ 5093. 2008-07-14 07:18:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 07:18:33 +0100 from: "Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\)" subject: RE: Fwd: RE: China and investment to: , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" hi Steve - see responses below - regards, Declan. ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: S.Dorling@uea.ac.uk [mailto:S.Dorling@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thu 10-07-2008 15:37 To: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Conway Declan Dr (DEV) Cc: Dorling Stephen Dr (ENV) Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: China and investment Hi Dec, thanks for sight of the draft report. Good to know that you have been involved in looking at PRECIS output for China. 2 of my PhD students have been running PRECIS experiments on the UEA cluster over the last couple of years, one for a NW Europe domain, the other for SE Asia with a special focus on Thailand. These projects have used boundary conditions from different global models and used different emission scenarios. I had no idea you were doing this - I've been quite involved with Richard Jones and groups runnning PRECIS in China and India Question I have is who has run the experiments you are analysing? Have these been done locally in China, following PRECIS training, or in the UK by the UKMO PRECIS Group or by Oxford through NERC KT funding? The chinese academy of agricultural sciences - main researcher Xu Yinlong - he has had lots of support from Hadley (mainly Richard) - through Defra funded projects on CC in China. Paper is attached on their work. They are now running PRECIS with ECHAM4 boundary conditions, and want to do some stabilisation and perturbed parameter experiements next. Next question is how to potentially build on what we've done through this opportunity with Lake House investment. The initial thoughts I've had are: 1. To consider a wider number of scenarios (different global boundary conditions and/or model physics, bearing in mind sensitivity to topography) Yes - interesting to do - certainly important to get scenarios with the ECHAM 4 boundary conditions not sure how easy it is to do other GCM boundary conditions (seems like a very slow process going through Hadley group, lots of bugs and delays) - or try another RCM?? I know the Climate Centre here in Beijing have run other models for China.... 2. To look at a subset of global models (ie those we think are more reliable, not just the IPCC average - we discussed this issue with Lake House and they were quite interested) Very important to do - see our final report (I'll attached in next email as it's big) we've done a quite detailed compariions of AR4 model results for China - PRECIS is pretty wet compared to the model average. Not sure how much could be done on this, although our work is farily superficial and could be done in more detail to add value 3. Historical crop yields based on reanalysis (or PRECIS with reanalysis boundary conditions) Good potential here - the group has CERES maize rice and wheat set up to run on high resolution grids - and can do this type of analysis easily. My feeling is that much less work has been done on extremes and their agricultural impacts (and climate drivers) - would be interesting to do more crop modelling of particularly extreme years/events and look at impacts (and compare with observed yields) and also to analyse the scenarios in more detail on things like length of groing season/dry spells etc. Note that the average impacts on crops, even out to 2050s and beyond are not that large relative to other socio-economic drivers - so it's important to look at extremes. I don't know what Lake House are interested in so it's difficult to comment - a key outcome of our work is to show the critical importance of water availability for agri. (irrigation) - less work has been done on this and htere is good potential to improve river flow modelling with scenarios..... 4. Would like to share our SE Asia PRECIS output with you. Okay - we should discuss when I'm back in August I wasn't sure why you include the "no-fertilization" results? Because of uncertainty about the actual CO2 effects - so we have a comparison Is there more detail regarding the Reading "Climate Change and China" workshop available? you can find detail here - I'll be there on 29th and 30th [1]http://www.rcuk.cn/rcuk/fore/s_workshop_cnt_en.php?pgm_id=63 Cheers Steve cheers Declan Our final report to follow (Phil I won't send it to you unless you ask for it > > Steve, > This reply came through from Declan. > > Cheers > Phil > >>Subject: RE: China and investment >>Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 03:12:42 +0100 >>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >>Thread-Topic: China and investment >>Thread-Index: Acjd84k/s9aoAasATd2CR/pgU6X3QwB42ctc >>From: "Conway Declan Dr \(DEV\)" >>To: "Phil Jones" >> >>Hi Phil - thanks for this - yes very interested to discuss. I'm back >>on 28th July - then going to Reading for two day meeting on CC in >>China (organised by Julia Slingo). I'll be around UEA form early >>August onwards. We're just finishing off lots of final reports form >>the project here - lots of work on scenarios and impacts on crop >>yields for all China. I am attaching the exec summary of our main >>national report - do share with Steve if you think relevant - all >>the best - Declan. >> >> >>---------- >>From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >>Sent: Fri 04-07-2008 17:32 >>To: Conway Declan Dr (DEV) >>Subject: China and investment >> >>> Declan, >> >> Steve Dorling and I have just had a couple of hours with >> an investment >> group from HK, called Lake House Group. When are you back in the UK? >> We've been asked to submit a proposal to them - related to agriculture >> and forestry and the effects of climate change. Might be worth >> discussing it 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 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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\XU et al GRL paper.pdf" 5014. 2008-07-14 09:14:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:14:47 +0100 from: "Rob Allan" subject: ACRE Zurich meeting Actions to: holger.meinke@wur.nl, stone@usq.edu.au, Pascal.Yiou@lsce.ipsl.fr, Albert.Klein.Tank@knmi.nl, pdailey@air-worldwide.com, Malcolm.Haylock@partnerre.com, Gilbert.P.Compo@noaa.gov, compo@colorado.edu, AMassacand@geosec.org, carton@atmos.umd.edu, parkin@essic.umd.edu, Thomas.Klein@smhi.se, Scott.D.Woodruff@noaa.gov, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, craig.donlon@metoffice.gov.uk, stefan.bronnimann@env.ethz.ch, Markus.Erhard@eea.europa.eu, Russell.Vose@noaa.gov, kenneth.casey@noaa.gov, ulbrich@met.fu-berlin.de, Jan.Kleinn@aspen-re.com, tom.howard@metoffice.gov.uk, andrea.grant@env.ethz.ch, Sakari.Uppala@ecmwf.int, juerg@giub.unibe.ch, antonio.cofino@unican.es, Paul.Della-Marta@meteoswiss.ch, menzel@forst.tu-muenchen.de, Bryson.Bates@csiro.au, kuettel@giub.unibe.ch, David_Bresch@swissre.com, valerie.trouet@wsl.ch, Xiaolan.Wang@ec.gc.ca, c.grossi-sampedro@uea.ac.uk, t.m.osborne@reading.ac.uk, RKUNZ@scor.com, Simon.Lloyd@lshtm.ac.uk, Dick.Dee@ecmwf.int, Paul.Holper@csiro.au, catharinesi@aol.com, sylvie.jourdain@meteo.fr, pascale.delecluse@meteo.fr, Howard.Diamond@noaa.gov, James.E.Overland@noaa.gov, JBuchanan@platinumre.com, Gabriela.Seiz@meteoswiss.ch, GJMA@bas.ac.uk, Jenny.Riches@premiers.qld.gov.au, Kevin.R.Wood@noaa.gov Dear All, I've attached here the set of Actions that were agreed at the ACRE Workshop in Zurich last month in advance of the full report on the meeting, which we're still working up. This will give WG leaders and all participants information on what we need to do to take the initiative further. I'll also send through the minutes of a small UK meeting under ACRE on Archives and Climate Change which was held at Queensland House last Friday (11th of July) for information on the data and archives area of ACRE activity. Cheers, Rob. ACRE Working groups 1. Data Rescue (Rob Allan) 2. Downscaling (Antonio Corfino) 3. Verification and Validation (Gil Compo) 4. User requirements and applications (Roger Stone) Action1: ACRE to contact ECSN to discuss the needs of ACRE and to explore how to work well with ECSN Actrion2: ACRE to request guidance and information on data policy Action3: ACRE to contact GEO/GEOSS to make them aware of the activity and link to a GEO task sheet Action4: ACRE to explore the possibility of making a presentation at the ECSN management meeting ACTION5: ACRE should establish which Inter-governmental teams (e.g. WMO CaGM, CCl, ET2.2, ETCCDI, GCOS focal points, WMO/IOC JCOMM etc.) are (a) relevant to ACRE and (b) could assist ACRE ACTION6: ACRE to set up a web page on the ACRE site to promote data rescue and expose the use of their data, applications etc. ACTION7: Phil to send the list of GCOS PRs to Rob with an explanation of proper process regarding collaboration for data access and rescue. ACTION8: Gil Compo to provide a summary of the problems with lack of MSLP data in the early part of the record to be sent to WMO Etienne Charpantier with a request for help ACTION9: An inventory of data used/available etc will be developed (Russ Vose NCDC) and put on the ACRE web site to complement that already provided by Rob Allan ACTION10: All to have a look at the ACRE web site and pass feedback and suggestions on improvements ACTION11: (Gil Compo) ACRE web site to include a Wiki/interactive blog?/comms tool/dairy to enable on-line discussion of major issues. ACTION12: NCDC can check the possibility of archiving digital images of lohgbooks etc. (Rob Allan, Russ Vose NCDC) link to Action1§3 ACTION13: Rob to put up a page on the ACRE web site that will explain what needs to be done for digitisation and how people can get involved. The page could explore a 'SETI' type community approach to community digitisation which would require a web interface and guidance on how to digitize data (FAQ or more detailed). Promote the Google Earth successes of Brohan et al (visual seduction…), identify the needs (Remarks books etc) ACTION 14: ACRE web site to include guidance on how to do data rescue – link to MEDARE project – FAQ and perhaps more – how to do this and what is best practice (how should this be done?). IMMA format?, verification? Validation? Tools? Problems and pitfalls? Successes? ACTION15: Saki Uppala to explore early archives at WMO (check with Saki) ACTION16: (Roger Stone) Explore if a student could be deployed to try and help digitise the UKHO/US NOAA Central Library Remarks Books ACTION17 (Stefan Bronnimann, Rob Allan) Has a web interface and 19 students to digitize data which could be used as a model system for ACRE. ACRE to explore how this system could be (a) promoted and (b) be used as a baseline system for further international STI Data Rescue activities ACTION18: Rob Allan to provide a list of monthly pressure data station list of the world for HadSLP and put on ACRE web pages ACTION19: Rob Allan, Markus Erhard, Roger Stone. to make contact with the Global Vegetation Modelling community. Applications, use iof the model inter-compariosn etc Action20: Roger link to FEAST, QERCI EU- Australia projects Action21: ACRE to reach out and ensure good connection to the people who are doing the raw data recovery – at the next meeting Action22: Have a target for data recovery as a countdown - % done bar on the web site – church appeal style Action23: WG chairs to develop ToR and plan of work with some deliverables Action24: (Rob Allan and Jan Klein) ACRE top seek advice on how best to work with the reinsurance industry (Bermuda) Action25: Rob and Xiaolan work towards a WMO article Action 26: Rob publish a formal pdf report of the meeting to help future funding of ACRE activities Action 27: Rob Allan and others to explore an ACRE.org web site including oceans etc. Action 28: Rob Allan to set up some top level (i.e. limited updates if any required) multi lingual web pages (Albert Klein-Tank DU, Carlotta Grossi ES, Xiaolan Wang CN, Stefan Bronnimann GR, Sylvie Jourdain FR) Action 29: ALL to advocate ACRE at national and international conferences, workshops etc. Action 30 Martin Juckes to explore convening a session on ACRE at EGU Action 31: Rob Allan to provide guidance on bringing the WG outputs together at the end of ACRE – top level objectives etc -- Dr Rob Allan, ACRE Project Manager, Climate Monitoring and Attribution Group, Met Office Hadley Centre. E-mail: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk ACRE WWW Page: http://brohan.org/hadobs/acre/acre.html Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom 2094. 2008-07-14 10:25:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:25:17 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal to: Tim Osborn ,Phil Jones , "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave and others we discussed these points here last week , so not surprisingly we have a general consensus here - to be clear : The first two arguements (and hence the letter as it stands) adequately represent my opinion and I am happy for this to stand as our response. Like Phil and Tim , I would be loathe to see UEA arguing that we (Tim, Phil,myself and other IPCC contributors) were acting in a personal capacity. Indeed , if this ever comes to the courts , I would hope UEA would support us with legal representation. While I believe UEA should not be in any way responsible for our academic opinions , it should take responsibility for our right to academic freedom. This is why I am arguing that we (UEA and authors) should not release our emails - regardless of whether they are held at UEA, in principal or in substance. Incidentally . UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task. To reiterate Tim's remarks , UEA and ENV does have a great deal of interest in our work for the IPCC , but I consider even though it does not have a direct interest in the detailed correspondence necessitated by this work , it would be unwise to follow this line of argument. At the least it would lead us open to accusations of hypocrisy. Thanks again to all for your continuing efforts. I now hear that John Mitchell is faced with questions to Holland's MP , so no doubt more to come! cheers Keith At 15:24 11/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: >Dear Dave, > >many thanks for your emails. Regarding the five possible exemptions: > >(1) I'm certainly happy if Jonathan Colam >supports the original two exemptions (the >confidentiality and the time limit) in his judgement. > >(2) Of the possible three new ones, I think the >exemption s.36 that disclosure would inhibit >free and frank exchange of views etc. really >matches very well how I feel about the whole >issue! This (plus the confidentiality) seem to be the strongest arguments. > >(3) Exemption s.40 about whether the material >contains personal information seems (from my >relative ignorance of these matters!) to be >difficult to support while at the same time >relying on the time limit exemption -- I thought >that the time spent checking all the material >for such personal info and redacting it was a >major component in exceeding the 18 hour >limit. If it is redacted, then surely what's >left is no longer personal? Unless people's >opinions on certain science matters can be >considered "personal"? Anyway, I'll leave this one to the FOIA specialists! > >(4) The possibility of following the Met >Office's lead and claiming that UEA has no >interest in the material and therefore doesn't >actually "hold" it, seems difficult to argue. I >agree with Phil's comments about the evidence >against making this argument. To answer your >direct question to us, "What interest does >UEA/CRU have in the IPCC correspondence and work >that you are doing?" I would say it has great >interest in the outcome of the correspondence >and work. Does this mean that it has an >interest in how we got there? Well I certainly >did not have to get any formal UEA approval for, >or oversight of, what I was doing/writing, so >perhaps you could argue that my actions (and >hence correspondence etc.) were not formally of >interest to UEA, even though UEA are keen to >take credit for the outcome. However, it is >hard to win a public argument along these lines, >even if it could be won legally! So, my feeling >is to steer clear of this. But again, I'm happy >to leave it to FOIA specialists. > >Thanks again, > >Tim > >At 10:54 11/07/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > >> Dave et al, >> One minor comment on the letter, then some thoughts on the >> stance the Met Office might be or are taking. >> First, there is an extra 'be' on the 6th >> line of the para beginning 'Further,..' >> >> Now the issue of the specific functions of the Met Office. This argument >> would also apply to UEA and to CRU/ENV, probably more so, as UEA >> is more independent (of government) than the >> Met Office. I say this as DEFRA >> fund the Met Office to the tune of about £18M per year. I am on the Hadley >> Centre's Scientific Review Group and have >> reviewed the DEFRA proposal. Throughout >> the documents I get for the annual Review Group meetings and in >> the proposal, there is a constant thread of how the work they are doing is >> essential for IPCC. How this works though is >> that their scientists (just like us) >> write papers for the peer-review literature, >> and these get referred to in the >> IPCC Reports. DEFRA expects that their scientists will be involved in the >> IPCC Chapter writing. DEFRA has also funded the Met Office to run the >> Technical Support Unit of Working Group 2 of IPCC. >> >> So, although IPCC work may not be a specific function of the Met Office, >> it is very much expected by DEFRA that they are heavily involved in IPCC. >> The Met Office and its Hadley Centre are happy to accept the kudos >> IPCC gets - especially the Nobel Peace Prize award in 2007 for IPCC itself. >> At least two people from the Met Office were at the award ceremony in Oslo >> - and only 25 in total were allowed to go. >> >> If the Met Office can or are using this >> argument, then UEA could as well. >> Whether we should is another matter. Individual scientists at UEA are free >> to get involved in IPCC writing teams, and from the VC downwards (through >> the Dean of Science and the Head of School in ENV) would expect us >> to get involved. It is not written in any job description, but it is one of >> the unwritten expected things academics ought to do. Keith and I use >> the involvement when we write letters each to the ENV promotion >> committee to get a pay increment, as I expect all the others in ENV >> who have been involved in IPCC do. UEA also takes the kudos from the >> report coming out and many in ENV have nice certificates recording the >> Nobel Peace prize award last year. Involvement in IPCC and the Nobel >> Peace Prize features strongly in the ENV Annual Report. Like the >> Met Office we also use the IPCC involvement when writing proposals. >> >> We're not paid to do IPCC, just like the Met Office scientists. We're >> paid expenses (by DEFRA) to go to the meetings and write the reports. >> Keith and I did much of this at weekends and evenings, but much also >> during work time and we used UEA resources to print out drafts. The work >> took time and we are paid by UEA, so UEA did subsidize us to do it. >> >> I have to admit that I like the argument, but would appreciate Michael's >> views and also Jonathan's as to whether we should. It might be worth >> discussing it with the Dean of Science of the HoS in ENV, as it could >> be construed by many to be a very odd >> argument to make. It certainly would close >> the door on this request, and set a precedent for any further requests when >> the next IPCC report comes along in 5-6 years >> time. Holland's requests are certainly >> different from those that came last year. >> >> If we do use this argument, then it ought to go where you say - after >> the re-assertion. >> >> A quick look at the Climate Audit web site >> would indicate that the Met Office >> have yet to respond in this way, but they may not have used such clear >> language (the blue) in your email. If we both respond in this way, CA will >> claim we have colluded! >> >> A final point. It is likely that a number >> of people in ENV will become involved >> in IPCC next time. I wouldn't want any >> disclosure to jeopardize future involvement, >> if others who are involved in IPCC future think working with UEA people >> could be a liability. This is sort of covered >> in your final principal paragraph. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >>At 16:02 10/07/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >> >>>Gents, >>>A copy of what was sent to Jonathan. Please >>>note that the opinion from the Met Office >>>quoted below is subject to lawyer-client >>>privilege and should not be shared outside the group that has now seen it. >>> >>>Cheers, Dave >>> >>>______________________________________________ >>>From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM >>>To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) >>>Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) >>>Subject: Freedom of Information request >>>(FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft >>>Importance: High >>> >>>Jonathan, >>>A draft response for your review and >>>comment. I have been in contact with the ICO >>>who are of the opinion that, if we feel that >>>there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the >>>first review of the request, they should be raised at this stage. >>> >>>I have added a s.40 exemption on the >>>assumption that, even if names of >>>correspondents are redacted, there is enough >>>information in what's left to reveal the >>>identity of individuals. If what is left is >>>'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it >>>is whether what is left qualifies as personal data…. >>> >>>Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on >>>the basis that the disclosure of this >>>information would clearly "in the reasonable >>>opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the >>>free and frank provision of advice, or, the >>>free and frank exchange of views for the >>>purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise >>>prejudice… the effective conduct of public >>>affairs". This section, as I read it, does >>>not limit the provision of advice or exchange >>>of views to inside an organisation. I have >>>been in touch with Lucy to determine, in a >>>rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified >>>person' (i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. >>> >>>There is an additional argument that we might >>>wish to make. I have been in touch with the >>>Met Office that have received a similar >>>request. They have been in touch with the ICO >>>and are making the argument that the >>>correspondence is not actually 'held' by them >>>at all! The argument is as follows: guidance >>>from last year from the ICO indicates that >>>information in which the institution has no >>>interest but physically possesses, is not >>>'held' by them for the purposes of the Act. Guidance states: >>> >>>"In these circumstances the public authority >>>will have an interest in this information and >>>will make disclosure decisions. This is because although >>> >>>ownership may still rest with the depositor, >>>the public authority with whom the information >>>has been deposited effectively controls the >>>information and holds it in its own right. It >>>will therefore be difficult to argue that the >>>information is merely held on behalf of >>>another person and consequently not held for >>>the purposes of the public authority itself." >>> >>>And >>> >>>"There will be cases where such information is >>>simply held on behalf of a third party, for >>>example for preservation or security purposes. Perhaps the public >>> >>>authority may be holding the information as >>>part of a service (whether for gain or >>>otherwise) to the depositor. Although this >>>information is in the possession of a public >>>authority, it does not fall within the scope >>>of the Act as the public authority has no interest in it." >>> >>>And finally in regards personal emails in general >>> >>>"In most circumstances private emails sent or >>>received by staff in the workplace would not >>>be held by the authority as it has no interest in them. It will be a >>> >>>question of fact and degree whether a public >>>authority does hold them, dependent on the >>>level of access and control it has over the e mail system and >>> >>>on the computer use policies. It is likely to >>>be the exception rather than the rule that the >>>public authority does hold them." >>> >>>I have also received some correspondence from >>>the Met Office that sets out their argument >>>along these lines; and further an assertion >>>that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts >>>of their particular case (emails not created >>>by the organisation, or used by them). To quote the internal briefing note >>> >>>"...the IPCC consultation exercise did not >>>have a role in respect of the specific >>>functions of the Met Office. It was aligned >>>with them but not a function of the Met >>>Office. The whole purpose of the IPCC is that >>>it is independent and objective." >>> >>> The Met Office are arguing that their >>> Director's involvement was in a >>> pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as >>> a representative of the Met Office and the >>> IPCC work was not Met Office work. What it >>> comes down to is our corporate interest in >>> this IPCC correspondence - if we have some, >>> then it would be 'held' by us. I have >>> emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this .. .but your feeling? >>> >>>Where we to make this argument, I would put it >>>immediately after our re-assertion of our >>>primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO does >>>decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we >>>would need to have a position on it's disclosure. >>> >>>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 >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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 > -- 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/ 3181. 2008-07-15 09:33:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:33:35 +0100 from: "Nigel Arnell" subject: RE: QUEST-GSI timings to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Thanks - that's very helpful. From the data you sent me yesterday, I was leaning towards using individual model tunings rather than the mean. I'll adjust the experimental design note accordingly. The outlier is MIROC... Regards Nigel Professor Nigel Arnell Director Walker Institute for Climate System Research University of Reading Earley Gate Reading RG6 6BB UK +44-118-378-7392 www.walker-institute.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 15 July 2008 09:31 To: Nigel Arnell Subject: RE: QUEST-GSI timings Nigel, yes, I agree that the climate uncertainty is bigger than the carbon cycle uncertainty, for determining global-mean T. Especially at mid century, but even at 2100. So, taking multi-model-mean global T will miss an important part of the uncertainty range. Reasons not to use specific model (or at least MAGICC approximation to specific model) global T? The only one is if the particular selection of GCMs is biased towards a particular part of the uncertainty range, or even if some GCM(s) have sensitivity that lies outside the IPCC likely range. The attached table indicates the climate sensitivities of the models being considered. Even the apparent "outlier" at the top in your temperature plot (which comes from MIROC hires I think) has an estimated equilibrium sensitivity of 4.3 K, i.e. within the IPCC likely range. So, this doesn't seem to be a reason. So, seems best to use individual model glob T, capturing the climate uncertainty, but ignoring the much smaller carbon cycle uncertainty. For QUMP runs, your suggestion of using the HadCM3-tuned version of MAGICC global temperature is best. All differences between runs would be, as you say, due to internal physics generating different spatial responses. However, the effect of internal physics causing different global temperature responses would not be captured, since they would all follow the standard HadCM3 behaviour. The only other idea that comes to mind is that, if we know the equilibrium climate sensitivity of each QUMP run, we could re-run MAGICC with all standard HadCM3 parameters except for equ. clim. sens., which could be varied from one QUMP run to the next. This is more complicated and thus more work, and also I'm not sure what we do if some of the QUMP runs have equ. clim. sens. that lies outside the IPCC likely range. Hopefully the attached table is useful, Tim At 16:32 14/07/2008, you wrote: >Tim, > >Thanks for the global temperature changes. > >I've been looking at the relative uncertainty due to carbon cycle >feedback and model parameter set, and the latter source of uncertainty >is of course dominant (see attached figure for A1b). By the 2050s, >scaling by high, rather than medium, carbon cycle feedback just alters >the climate changes b less than 5% (e.g. a 20% increase in rainfall >would become a 21% increase in rainfall); the differences would likely >be trivial. > >By scaling by low/medium and high carbon cycle feedback, and averaging >across all 19 models we are missing much of the uncertainty in climate >change at a given time horizon. We would get a much greater range by >simply scaling each model pattern by its own change in global >temperature delta T (just assuming medium carbon cycle feedback). I know >that some of the fits are not very good, and that we don't have tuned >parameters for the QUMP runs, but are there other good reasons why we >don't rescale by the delta T appropriate for each model? We could >rescale QUMP by the HadCM3-tuned parameters, and all the difference >between runs would be due to internal physics. > >Comments appreciated! > > >Nigel > > > >Professor Nigel Arnell >Director >Walker Institute for Climate System Research >University of Reading >Earley Gate >Reading >RG6 6BB >UK > >+44-118-378-7392 > >www.walker-institute.ac.uk > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 14 July 2008 14:43 >To: Nigel Arnell >Subject: Re: QUEST-GSI timings > >At 14:35 14/07/2008, you wrote: > >Ps - could you email the MAGICC spreadsheets with change in global > >average temperature for each model pattern? > >Nigel, > >I'll reply re. the timings when I've worked out the details. In the >meantime, here are the MAGICC global-mean temperatures simulated >after tuning to the AR4 GCMs. For each SRES scenario, you'll find 3 >files (for climate-carbon cycle feedback strength low, default and >high), and within each file you'll find multiple columns, one for >each GCM that was tuned to. > >Let me know if anything isn't clear, > >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 > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1549 - Release Date: >7/12/2008 4:31 PM > 4202. 2008-07-15 10:00:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:00:34 +0000 from: Dennis Wheeler subject: Queensland House meeting 11th July to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear Colleagues, Thank you for attending our meeting on 11th, which I'm sure will agree was a very useful means of familiarising ourselves with our different activities in this area. I have put together some hopefully brief minutes for the event (attached). We should endeavour not to lose the momentum provided by the event. Any comments would be welcome. regards Dennis Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Archives meeting minutes.doc" 450. 2008-07-15 10:27:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk date: Tue Jul 15 10:27:10 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: no details by email to: Brian Hoskins Brian the relevant authority in UEA is Dave Palmer (cc'd on this message) . David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ [1]David.Palmer@uea.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1603 59 3523 He can provide the official responses and any background to the FOI requests we have received from Holland. Very best wishes Keith At 17:38 14/07/2008, you wrote: Keith Please could we chat on the phone some time soon? Tuesday I will be in Imperial on 0207594 9667 Wednesday Reading 0118378 8953 Thanks Brian -- 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/ 2793. 2008-07-15 13:35:46 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 15 13:35:46 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: FW: Fundametal analysis of the effect of CO2 to: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI\)" No. But googling piers forster leeds comes up with: piers@env.leeds.ac.uk Tim At 13:23 15/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim See email below from Phil. Do you have Piers' email address please? Thanks Sylv -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [[1]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 1:10 PM To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) Subject: Re: FW: Fundametal analysis of the effect of CO2 > Sylvia, Forward this to Piers Forster of Leeds. Tim will have his email. Cheers phil > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Nicol [[2]mailto:jonicol@netspace.net.au] > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 11:48 AM > To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) > Subject: Fundametal analysis of the effect of CO2 > > > > > Dear Sylvia, > > I read through your publication list some time ago and was > disappointed not to find any reference to a direct analysis of the > radiation absorption and energy distribution characteristics of CO2 > and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which, as I understand > the problem, is the very basis of the "Greenhouse effect". > > I am interested personally in studying this process and have written a > simple draft of a potential paper which attempts to derive directly > and quantitatively the physical effect of the 15 micron band of carbon > dioxide in absorbing IR radiation from the earth and distributing the > absorbed energy to the atmosphere through intermolecular collisions. > Account is also taken of the effects of collisional line broadening of > the components of this most significant band in determining the > absorption in regions across the full spectrum of a ~300 degrees K > surface radiation from the earth (~1 to 50 microns). I have recently > made similar calculations for the other bands at 2.7 and 4.3 microns > to be combined with the effects of the 15 micron and included cut-offs > for the collision broadening to account for restriction to higher > energies for effective broadening collisions at large frequency shifts > - i.e. in the far wings of the lines. These latest changes are not > included in the current draft which I attach for the interest of > people working in your centre or others of whom they may be aware > would have worked in this field of spectroscopy. > > Unfortunately, the results of these calculations seem to show that > over the 10 km path from the earth surface to the top of the > atmosphere > (tropopause) almost all of the earth's radiation is absorbed and most of > it at very low altitudes, where the radiation is converted to kinetic > energy of the many gaseous components of air and is therefore carried > upwards by convection, providing very little back radiation to warm the > surface beyond what would arise from a much lower concentration of > greenhouse gas. This seems to imply that increases in carbon dioxide > concentrations in the atmosphere will have no effect at all in > increasing the earth's temperature. I realise that this goes against > conventional wisdom and would be very loath to attempt to publish the > final paper without its being further carefully analysed by another > competent physicist familiar with molecular spectroscopy. I have > already discussed it with other physicists and it has been open to > viewers on the web for about two months but the only responses to it are > in agreement with its findings. There appear to be no papers in the > literature, as yet, or at least which I can find, which I can find, > which confirm or dispute the results obtained here, although papers in > which the absorption characteristics of the wings of the lines and of > the basic collisional line broadening of them which is crucial to this > analysis, are consistent with its conclusions. > > I would appreciate your comments or those of colleagues, should you > have the time to peruse it. Thank you, > John Nicol > jonicol@netspace.net.au > jonicol@bigpond.com > Ph: 07 4663 7793 > Fax:07 4663 7713 > Mob: 0409 761 503 > "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model > that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you > allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that > the elephant will fly." > von Neumann - mathematical physicist. > > 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life. But so was > yesterday, and look how you messed that up.' "A man has made at least > a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade > trees under which he knows full well he will never sit." > > Life in this world consists of a multiplicity of fragments which are > brought together over time to complete a complex collage, a work of > art which we all admire. Some of the individual pieces may not be to > our taste, but may totally define the life of others. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "climatescience" group. To post to this group, send email to > climatescience@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send > email to climatescience-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > [3]http://groups.google.com/group/climatescience?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > > 3465. 2008-07-15 13:49:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Waterson Elaine Mrs \(REG\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:49:17 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: RE: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution to: "Mouland Lucy Dr \(VCO\)" , "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Lucy/Jonathan, Three matters... 1. Section 36 - It is not necessary that the VC write the letter, simply that he invokes s.36. We are already committed to having Jonathan conducting the review of the appeal and a draft letter is in consideration. What I would recommend is an 'addendum' in effect, in which the VC states that in his reasonable opinion, the disclosure of this information would likely inhibit (a) the free and frank provision of advice, (s.36(2)(i) and (b) the free and frank exchange of vies for the purposes of deliberation (s.36(2)(ii) I will do a briefing note and have it to you by close of play today. 2. Section 27 - this was raised by the Met Office and I think it has considerable merit, particularly subsections (2) and (3). The relevant sections are below: 27 International relations (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-- (a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State, (b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court, (c) the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or (d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests abroad. 2) Information is also exempt information if it is confidential information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an international organisation or international court. (3) For the purposes of this section, any information obtained from a State, organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence or while the circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State, organisation or court to expect that it will be so held. [emphasis mine] This clearly dovetails with our s.41 and s.36 exemptions and in fact is stronger than s.41 in that there is no requirement that there be 'a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person' . It is my opinion that the correspondence received by us was clearly expected to be confidential by the persons who sent it to us, and should therefore be exempt from disclosure under s.27. Indeed, the Dept. of Justice has a Working Assumption for central government that "If, having been consulted, the state or organisation concerned objects to disclosure on the basis that the information was provided in confidence or if, in the absence of consultation, the circumstances make it reasonable to assume that the state or organisation would object to disclosure on the basis that the information was provided in confidence - withhold, citing exemption under section 27(2) of the Act (international relations)." This would only apply to information obtained from the IPCC itself, and the other institutions mentioned in the original request of Mr. Holland. There is a public interest test on this exemption and the DOJ state: When considering the balance of the public interest in respect of confidential information covered by section 27(2), the following are some examples of matters which might be taken into account: * whether disclosure would be contrary to international law (for example where disclosure would be a breach of a treaty obligation) * whether disclosure would undermine the United Kingdom's reputation for honouring its international commitments and obligations * whether disclosure would be likely to undermine the willingness of the state, international organisation or court that supplied the information to supply other confidential information in future (or whether it would be likely to have such an affect on the willingness of states, international organisations or courts in general) * whether disclosure would be likely to provoke a negative reaction from the state, international organisation or court that supplied the information that would damage the United Kingdom's relations with them and/or its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests * whether disclosure would be likely to result in another state, international organisation or court disclosing confidential information supplied by the United Kingdom, contrary to the United Kingdom's interests * whether the state, international organisation or court that supplied the confidential information has objected to its disclosure and good relations with them would be likely to suffer if the objection were ignored While the specific circumstances of each case must be considered, where any of the above considerations are present there is likely to be a strong public interest in non-disclosure. [emphasis mine] I believe that the highlighted section applies in our case, based on feedback from the persons and organisations named in the original request. If agreed, I will recommend the insertion of the appropriate wording/arguments into the response letter from Jonathan. 3. 'Not held' - We will not be pursuing the argument that we do not hold this information, nor will be invoke a s.40 exemption - upon reflection, it would be very contentious whether the information left after redaction would qualify as 'personal data' requiring s.40 protection. I am sending a copy of this to Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn, Jones and McGarvie for their input into the Section 27 argument; however, I believe that they would be in agreement with the approach I have taken. Sorry this is so lengthy! Cheers, Dave _____________________________________________ From: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:43 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Cc: Waterson Elaine Mrs (REG) Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft Dave, Registrar agrees that we should seek to use the s.36 exemption, but notes that we must get VC specifically to agree to use it (and therefore to sign the letter?). Please could you do a short briefing note to that effect so that Registrar can review we can get the VC to make the decision? I take it from the other comments that you will not pursue the argument about us not owning the information? Lucy Lucy Mouland Senior Assistant Registrar (Vice-Chancellor's Office) University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone: 01603 592229 _____________________________________________ From: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 3:56 PM To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: Mouland Lucy Dr (VCO) Subject: Freedom of Information request (FOI_08-23) - Appeal resolution draft Importance: High Jonathan, A draft response for your review and comment. I have been in contact with the ICO who are of the opinion that, if we feel that there are exemptions that we 'missed' on the first review of the request, they should be raised at this stage. I have added a s.40 exemption on the assumption that, even if names of correspondents are redacted, there is enough information in what's left to reveal the identity of individuals. If what is left is 'personal data', then s.40 clearly applies; it is whether what is left qualifies as personal data.... Additionally, I have added a s.36 exemption on the basis that the disclosure of this information would clearly "in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person", "inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or, the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation" and "would otherwise prejudice... the effective conduct of public affairs". This section, as I read it, does not limit the provision of advice or exchange of views to inside an organisation. I have been in touch with Lucy to determine, in a rough way, the opinion of the 'qualified person' (i.e. the VC) in this case & she concurs. There is an additional argument that we might wish to make. I have been in touch with the Met Office that have received a similar request. They have been in touch with the ICO and are making the argument that the correspondence is not actually 'held' by them at all! The argument is as follows: guidance from last year from the ICO indicates that information in which the institution has no interest but physically possesses, is not 'held' by them for the purposes of the Act. Guidance states: "In these circumstances the public authority will have an interest in this information and will make disclosure decisions. This is because although ownership may still rest with the depositor, the public authority with whom the information has been deposited effectively controls the information and holds it in its own right. It will therefore be difficult to argue that the information is merely held on behalf of another person and consequently not held for the purposes of the public authority itself." And "There will be cases where such information is simply held on behalf of a third party, for example for preservation or security purposes. Perhaps the public authority may be holding the information as part of a service (whether for gain or otherwise) to the depositor. Although this information is in the possession of a public authority, it does not fall within the scope of the Act as the public authority has no interest in it." And finally in regards personal emails in general "In most circumstances private emails sent or received by staff in the workplace would not be held by the authority as it has no interest in them. It will be a question of fact and degree whether a public authority does hold them, dependent on the level of access and control it has over the e mail system and on the computer use policies. It is likely to be the exception rather than the rule that the public authority does hold them." I have also received some correspondence from the Met Office that sets out their argument along these lines; and further an assertion that the ICO has indicated that, on the facts of their particular case (emails not created by the organisation, or used by them). To quote the internal briefing note "...the IPCC consultation exercise did not have a role in respect of the specific functions of the Met Office. It was aligned with them but not a function of the Met Office. The whole purpose of the IPCC is that it is independent and objective." The Met Office are arguing that their Director's involvement was in a pseudo-academic/personal capacity and not as a representative of the Met Office and the IPCC work was not Met Office work. What it comes down to is our corporate interest in this IPCC correspondence - if we have some, then it would be 'held' by us. I have emailed Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones to assess this .. .but your feeling? Where we to make this argument, I would put it immediately after our re-assertion of our primary grounds of exemption; if the ICO does decide that we 'hold' this correspondence, we would need to have a position on it's disclosure. Cheers, Dave << File: Appeal_review_draft.doc >> ____________________________ David Palmer Information Policy Officer University of East Anglia Norwich, England NR4 7TJ 4801. 2008-07-16 09:17:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:17:42 +0100 from: Sarah Keeley subject: Tree ring samples to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Hi Tom, Hope all is well out in Norfolk! A group of us are going to the BA festival of science to talk about climate change and how we build up a body of evidence to decide whether the changes are unusual or not. We were going to talk about the palaeo record and wondered if you had some spare tree ring samples we could pass round - I know some we used at the Norwich festival of science and wondered if you still had them... Any help would be great! Thanks, Sarah -- ---------------------------------------------------- Dr Sarah Keeley, Research Fellow Walker Institute, http://www.walker-institute.ac.uk NCAS-Climate, Dept. of Meteorology, University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading, RG6 6BB. UK web: www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~keeley tel:+44 (0)118 378 6013 fax:+44 (0)118 378 8316 ---------------------------------------------------- 3317. 2008-07-16 11:47:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:47:57 +0100 from: "M.D.Bateman" subject: [supranet] [Fwd: Re: Outline Paper] to: supranet@lists.shef.ac.uk HI, I concur with James - looks like a good framework. My comments for what they are worth are... [1] para 1.5 I would like to see the paper move away from this "position paper" stance which comes across as too much like self promoting supranet. I would like for the paper to have an aim to review existing approaches for identifying and quantifying uncertainties in palaeoclimatic data followed by a discussion of how new approaches might be applied to resolve some of the previously identified outstanding issues. [2] as the risk of being accused of self-promoting the following two references deal with issues associated with non-climatic influences of proxy record - namely bioturbation.... Bateman, M.D., Boulter, C.H., Carr, A.S., Frederick, C.D., Peter, D., Wilder, M. (2007). Detecting Post-depositional sediment disturbance in sandy deposits using optical luminescence. Quaternary Geochronology 2, 57-64. Boulter, C., Bateman, M.D., Frederick, C.D. (2007). Developing a protocol for selecting and dating sandy sites in East Central Texas: Preliminary results. Quaternary Geochronology 2, 45-50. [3]paragraph 2.4 comes across at present as quite negative. We must strive hard with this paper to provide an unbiased review AND also to provide examples of positive outcomes. In this paragraph I would like to see a counter-balance of a proxy record where assessments of uncertainty are pretty well quantified. Again I may be bias but a chronology case study here might provide this balance. [4] Not sure about section 4 which again sounds like "positioning" supranet for research grants rather than providing information to a readership. I would advocate some sort of summary of where we are at, the exciting first steps that have been taken with bayesian and then a paragraph of areas where we can see a need for improvements. [5] couldn't see the point made anywhere that whilst being more open about all uncertainties in palaeoclimate data may be painful in the short-term (and lead people to wonder whether any interpretations are possible) the longer-term better understanding of uncertainty and application of statistical approaches will be able to better resolve the uncertainty and give probabilistic information of different interpretations. cheers mark -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [supranet] Re: Outline Paper Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:44:30 +0900 From: James Annan To: supranet@lists.shef.ac.uk References: <4874DF04.3060305@sheffield.ac.uk> Hi Tamsin (especially) and all, I have a few comments and references. Overall, it looks like an excellent framework to me. First, I think the term "inverse modelling" will be widely misinterpreted and needs to be changed and/or carefully used. Many, certainly in the climate science/numerical modelling readership, would describe any generic process of using observational data to estimate climate state variables or hidden model parameters as "inverse modelling" (ie, effectively inverting whatever forward model is under consideration). Indeed para 2.1 seems to keep this meaning. But as I understand it, the term was often being applied in the workshop (and apparently also in the paper, eg para 3.1) as specifically limited to simple regression-based calibrations. If you want the distinction I would be tempted to describe it as process-based models vs purely statistical models but maybe someone will object to that... I don't understand paragraph 3.5, but then again I don't know what the reference is! But Guiot et al 2000 (ec. mod.) explicitly describes his work as following a Bayesian approach. I'm not sure where and how (or even if) any of the following should fit in - maybe around 2.4 - so have not attempted to actually write chunks of text: Refs 1 and 2 (below) are possibly useful references that talk about methods for creating climate fields out of proxy measurements. They only really discuss the issue of getting from a set of point measurements to a spatial field though, leaving the proxy-climate calibration to someone else. If you want an example of climate state reconstruction with explicit error estimates (para 2.4), then 3 may be a good example, but it is based on modern observations and they are looking at ocean transports rather than temp/precip. [There are also the reanalysis projects (NCEP is the most famous - I believe the Kalnay et al 1996 paper in BAMS is the most cited ever in the geosciences - but there are also ERA-40 and JRA-25) which have reconstructed the time-varying atmospheric state over the past several decades, but that may be a bit of a stretch in terms of relevance.] There are also some somewhat relevant references in these three papers 1-3 which talk about paleoclimate as deduced from blending observations and modelling in various ways. Also 4 is a recent example on both stacking, and generating chronology for, sediment cores, with a rather vague discussion of uncertainty. It seems that there are already well-established plug-and-play Bayesian methods that could (presumably) improve on this. 5 is the best PMIP ref, which seems needed in the text. If anyone can't easily access these papers I can send pdfs. James refs: 1: @article{paul2005csp, title={{How to combine sparse proxy data and coupled climate models}}, author={Paul, A. and Sch{\"a}fer-Neth, C.}, journal={Quaternary Science Reviews}, volume={24}, number={7-9}, pages={1095--1107}, year={2005}, publisher={Elsevier} } 2: @article{schaferneth2005pmm, title={{Perspectives on mapping the MARGO reconstructions by variogram analysis/kriging and objective analysis}}, author={Sch{\"a}fer-Neth, C. and Paul, A. and Mulitza, S.}, journal={Quaternary Science Reviews}, volume={24}, number={7-9}, pages={1083--1093}, year={2005}, publisher={Elsevier} } 3: Ganachaud and Wunsch (2000). A. Ganachaud and C. Wunsch , Oceanic meridional overturning circulation, mixing, bottom water formation and heat transport. Nature 408 (2000), pp. 453–457 4: Lisiecki, L. E., and M. E. Raymo (2005), A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic d18O records, Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071 5: Results of PMIP2 coupled simulations of the Mid-Holocene and Last Glacial Maximum – Part 1: experiments and large-scale features P. Braconnot, B. Otto-Bliesner, S. Harrison, S. Joussaume, J.-Y. Peterchmitt, A. Abe-Ouchi, M. Crucifix, E. Driesschaert, Th. Fichefet, C. D. Hewitt, M. Kageyama, A. Kitoh, A. Laîné, M.-F. Loutre, O. Marti, U. Merkel, G. Ramstein, P. Valdes, S. L. Weber, Y. Yu, and Y. Zhao Clim. Past, 3, 261-277, 2007 -- James D Annan jdannan@jamstec.go.jp Tel: +81-45-778-5618 (Fax 5707) Senior Scientist, Frontier Research Centre for Global Change, JAMSTEC 3173-25 Showamachi, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 236-0001 Japan http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/ -- Dr. Mark D. Bateman Reader in Palaeoenvironmental Reconstruction Sheffield Centre for International Drylands Research Department of Geography, Winter St., University of Sheffield Sheffield S10 2TN E-mail M.D.Bateman@sheffield.ac.uk Tel: (+44) 0114 222 7929 Fax: (+44) 0114 279 7912 SCIDR Website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/scidr/ Dept Website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/geography/staff/bateman_mark.html 676. 2008-07-18 09:02:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Jul 18 09:02:37 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Precip patterns to: Ian Harris Same file is fine. Whatever's easier. Tim At 16:50 17/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, OK to all. You want the reference gamma shape somewhere special? In a separate file, in the gamma files? Cheers Harry On 17 Jul 2008, at 16:32, Tim Osborn wrote: Hi Harry, initial look reveals patterns are very close to what I expected except the opposite sign and also maybe higher magnitude. I was surprised to see no regions where it failed due to zero precip etc. Can you output the gamma shape calculated for the reference pool (1951-2000) i.e. the bottom of the fraction in step 43? One field per month of the year would be useful. Cheers P.S. also try to name files following the same structure as the other variables, so pr_gamma.patterns1.dat not pr.gamma.dat Tim At 16:59 10/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim, HadCM3 precip gamma file now awaiting shredding/awards as appropriate. In /cru/cruts/patterns/pr_gamma/ Cheers Harry 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: [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [2]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 5001. 2008-07-22 15:12:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 22 15:12:59 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: A long and rocky road... to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear Ben, well, thanks for your thanks. I'm not sure that I did all that much, but glad that the small amount is appreciated. It's a shame that the process couldn't have been quicker still, but hopefully the final production stage will pass smoothly. Thanks for the copy of the paper, which I've skim read already -- looks very carefully done and therefore convincing (I'm sure you already heard that from others). I note that you also provide some supporting online material (SOM). Provision of SOM is a relatively new facility for IJoC to offer and it may be suffering from teething problems. A paper of mine (Maraun et al.) that appeared online in IJoC back in February still has its SOM missing! Hopefully this is a one-off omission, but I'll now email Glenn to remind him of this in relation to my paper and also point out that your paper has SOM. I think this is a problem on the publisher's side of things rather than an editorial problem. Because of our absent SOM, we've temporarily posted a copy of the SOM on our personal website. If your SOM was delayed, and if you think that critics might complain if the paper appears without the SOM, you might want to post a copy of the SOM on your own website when the paper appears online. But hopefully there'll be no problem with it! I heard you had a recent trip to Australia for Tom's wedding -- hope that was fun! Best regards Tim At 22:28 21/07/2008, you wrote: Dear Tim, Our response to the Douglass et al. IJoC paper has now been formally accepted, and is "in press" at IJoC. I've appended a copy of the final version of the manuscript. It's been a long and rocky road, and I'll be quite glad if I never have to write another MSU paper again - ever! I'd be grateful if you handled the paper in confidence at present. Since IJoC now has online publication, we're hoping that the paper will appear in the next 4-6 weeks. Hope you are well, Tim. Thanks for all your help with the tricky job of brokering the submission of the paper to IJoC. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5082. 2008-07-22 15:28:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Jul 22 15:28:10 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: JOC-08-0085.R1 - International Journal of Climatology to: "Glenn McGregor" Dear Glenn, At 10:07 14/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote: just checking whether you got the revised manuscript or not. Douglas is concerned in case it didn't get through, e.g. if there are limits on attachment size etc. I see at Manuscript Central that the revised Maraun et al. paper is now "assigning referees", so I presume that you received the PDF by email from Douglas? Actually I was surprised that it needs refereeing again, since the required changes were relatively minor wording changes plus a supplemental calculation that fully supports our original results/choices. On a slightly different matter, our previous paper <[1]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117906431/abstract> had some supporting online material (SOM), but this has never appeared (as far as I can find) on Wiley's IJC online site. It would be great if we can get this uploaded there soon. We can send another copy of the SOM (to you? or to someone at Wiley?) if necessary. The reason that prompted me to check the availability of our SOM is that Ben Santer recently emailed me the accepted version of his paper (following Douglass et al.'s paper) which also came with a SOM. I wanted to check that Wiley InterScience are actually ready to handle his SOM (i.e. that both the article and the SOM will be posted together online)? Best wishes and hope that you are enjoying NZ, Tim 3174. 2008-07-22 17:10:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:10:41 +0100 from: "Naomi Law" subject: RE: Names and a few articles to: "Phil Jones" Thank you very much for this - and for talking to me earlier. It is good to have made contact with you and the CRU. I haven't fully digested everything here yet but am looking forward to doing so. Is it ok if I keep your contact details in our records so that, if appropriate, either I or my colleagues can get in touch again at a later stage of the research process? Thanks again and best wishes, Naomi ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 22 July 2008 10:57 To: Naomi Law Subject: Names and a few articles Naomi, These names will just be starting points. Peru/Ecuador and the impacts of El Nino on civilizations across South America - Ricardo García Herrera Dto. Física de la Tierra II Facultad de CC Físicas Universidad Complutense Ciudad Universitaria s/n 28040 Madrid Spain tel (34)913944490 fax (34) 913944635 rgarciah@fis.ucm.es Polynesia - luc.ortlieb@bondy.ird.fr Luc ORTLIEB, Directeur de l'UR 055 "PALEOTROPIQUE" Paléoenvironnements tropicaux et variabilité climatique Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) 32 avenue Henri-Varagnat, F-93143 Bondy Cedex, France Tel. : (33) / (0)148025592, [1]mailto:Luc.Ortlieb@ird.fr Assistante: Nathalie Teinturier [2]mailto:Nathalie.Teinturier@ird.fr Tel.: (33) / (0)148025637 ; Fax: (33) / (0)148025554 Greenland Ice Dating Bo Vinther I don't have an email tail for him. I have attached a paper about AD 536 Bo also has a paper on the near exact dates of the Younger Dryas events about 11,000 years ago and two other more recent events 8.2 and 4.3 K years ago. In dating these ice cores Bo has also been dragged into the date of the Thera eruption (16th century BC) which led to the ending of the Minoan civilization. There have been programmes before on this, so I'd avoid this one. Dating of the event (to an exact year) has great implications for the dates of pharoahs in Egypt - and also the parting of the Red Sea. For background on this I'd take to Sturt Manning who is based at Cornell University in New York State. and finally Ireland paper attached about the event in 1740. The book Arctic Ireland is by Dickson (1997). Also attached a recent paper of mine - which is a review of documentary data and some of the myths about these sorts of data that prevail. This relates to the freezing of Thames in London (and why this doesn't happen now), vine growing in England and the Norse in Greenland. Climatically events may be one offs or a protracted cool/warm or wet/dry period. It is likely that effects wrt civilizations would likely come from the protracted events, except where a one off could induce a major cataclysm such as flood (inland and/or tidal), or a complete crop failure. I'm away on holiday all next week. Cheers Phil At 18:06 21/07/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, That would be fine. I'll call as close to 9am as possible. Best wishes, Naomi ___________________________________________________________________________________ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [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. 3023. 2008-07-23 16:03:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Mark Mr \(ITCS\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:03:25 +0100 from: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" subject: FW: FOI_08-323; EIR_08-01 to: "Colam Jonathan Mr \(ISD\)" Jonathan, After discussion with the CRU folks, and Michael McGarvie, we amended our approach to deal with this under FOI from EIR and I communicated this decision to Mr. Holland on 19 May 2008. In response to this letter, he stated (amongst other things), "My request remains on the basis of either the FOIA or the EIR and it is not immediately obvious to me how one decides which might apply in advance." (Holland to Palmer, 27 May 2008) Our decision to process under FOIA was based upon a determination of the content of the material requested from the persons most knowledgeable of it at UEA, namely Mssrs. Briffa, Osborn & Jones. Essentially the requester is trying to have another bite of the cherry - if the ICO feels that we have not used the EIR when we should have, they can tell us that and we will reconsider. I would, however, contend that the position that we have adopted under FOIA would be maintainable under EIR as the exemptions under that Act mirror those under FOIA, save for s.36 and s.12 (no appropriate limit within EIR), so we would still have a claim to exempt information whose disclosure would adversely affect international relations (Reg. 12(5)(a)) or where disclosure would adversely effect the interests of the person who provided the information where consent to disclosure has not been given (Reg. 12(5)(f)(iii)). If you wish, we can have a brief discussion about how to proceed - I will also contact the ICO to make sure whatever we do here is not any egregious error.... Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: David Holland [mailto:d.holland@tesco.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:40 PM To: Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) Cc: David Keith Palmer Subject: Re: FOI_08-323; EIR_08-01 Mr Colam, I attach my response to your letter received 17 July 2008 Regards David ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Colam Jonathan Mr (ISD) To: [2]David Holland Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:15 PM Mr. Holland, I attach my response to your request received on 20 July by Mr. Palmer. Regards, Jonathan ______________________________________________________________________________________ Jonathan Colam Director of Information Services Information Services Directorate The Library University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ 01603 593858 [3]j.colam@uea.ac.uk Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CRU20080723H.pdf" 225. 2008-07-23 18:57:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:57:52 +0800 from: "Helen" subject: Re: Carbon trading in the Middle East to: [cid:image001.gif@01C8ECF6.01E78840] Dear Colleague, If you've been buying or selling carbon credits in the last few years, you would know that about 80% of carbon credits today are coming from projects in only two countries - China and India. Though these two giants still present attractive investment opportunities for you, having your carbon offsets sourced from only two countries can be problematic. Issues like China's unofficial price floor, or difficulties managing Indian CDM projects, are now driving many project developers and credit buyers to seek other host countries for their carbon offsets. Here are 3 reasons why you should be looking at the Middle East & North Africa (MENA) region as your next big source of carbon credits: 1) The countries in the region house sizeable energy-intensive and carbon-intensive industries such as energy and metals. 2) Some of the world's wealthiest investors are based in the Middle East. They can help finance your climate change mitigation projects. 3) Middle Eastern and North African governments, investors and local industry leaders are now more open and interested in the benefits of carbon offset projects and sustainable investments. As the carbon market explodes in the next few years to become the world's biggest market overall, wouldn't you want to be the first to get into this region, rich in opportunities but so difficult to get into? Meet the people who will determine how carbon finance takes shape in the Middle East! Catch opening remarks from the UNFCCC and keynote addresses by Karan Capoor of the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit, Sam Nader, Director of Masdar Carbon (Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company), Dr. Armin Sandhoevel, Chairman of the UNEP FI Climate Change Working Group, and Dr. Tilak Doshi, Executive Director for Energy of the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre. This will be a sold out event! Reserve your seats before August 23, 2008 to enjoy our early bird specials! To register, please contact me today. You may call me at (65) 6506 0965, fax (65) 6749 7293, or email [1]marketing@alleventsgroup.com. Visit us online at [2]www.alleventsgroup.com/emissions. See you in Abu Dhabi. Warmest Regards, Garcon Thomas Bernavil Marketing Manager Tel: (65) 6506 0965 Fax: (65) 6749 7293 Email: [3]marketing@alleventsgroup.com Website: [4]www.alleventsgroup.com/emissions Embedded Content: image00185.gif: 00000001,0c06b1c9,00000000,00000000 3405. 2008-07-24 07:41:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:41:00 -0400 from: h.langenberg@nature.com subject: Information for reviewing Nature Geoscience manuscript to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_1216899660291895" X-Mailer: MIME::Lite 3.021 (F2.74; T1.23; A2.02; B3.07; Q3.07) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:41:00 -0400 Message-Id: <95121689966084@rhwww3.nature.com.nature.com> Dear Keith, Some time ago you kindly refereed for us the original version of the manuscript entitled "Sulphur deposition causes a large-scale growth decline in boreal forests in Eurasia" (manuscript number NGS-2008-02-00218B). The authors have now revised their manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments and our editorial requirements. The authors believe that they have been able to answer the criticisms raised, and have documented their responses in a letter that you will find with the manuscript. (However, please note that they appear to have exchanged the referee numbers). We should be most grateful if you would look at the revised manuscript and tell us whether you think publication in Nature Geoscience is now justified. Please also feel free to comment on the authors' responses to the other referee's criticisms. PLEASE NOTE: When reviewing the paper, we would be grateful if you could pay particular attention to the statistics. All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of the statistical tests and the accuracy of the description of the error bars and probability values. To access the manuscript, instructions and review form, please click on the link below: [1]http://mts-ngs.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A4Q2ClD6A2Fuv1J4A9JOS90SF8SKS06zDjUtY4wZ From there, simply follow the link to manuscript number NGS-2008-02-00218B. The review form will rapidly allow you to provide feedback in the following areas: Remarks to the Editor (which will remain confidential) Remarks to the Author (which are transmitted in full) In the future, you can enter the system by using the link above or by logging into the site at www.mts-ngs.nature.com, which requires a user name and password. If you do not know your user name and password, please click on the forgotten password link on the login page and enter your full first name and last name. The system will send you an email with a new login name and password. You will then be prompted to change the password the first time you login. If you are unable to assess the manuscript within two weeks, we would appreciate it if you would let us know immediately by return e-mail. Best wishes, Heike ******************************************** Dr Heike Langenberg Chief Editor Nature Geoscience [2]http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html Reviewer Reports: Reviewers Comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Comments on Nature submission by Yuliya Savval and Frank Berninger .( NGS-2008-02-00218 ) Sulphur Deposition causes a large scale growth decline in boreal forests in Eurasia. This paper is not suitable for publication in any journal in its present form. Even by Nature standards it can only be described as opaque. There is nothing like enough material or detail presented even in the supplementary material to allow a full balanced assessment of the general argument that Sulphur pollution is negatively impacting on pine growth in the western part of the Eurasian boreal forest. My first observation is that it is odd that this paper makes no reference at all to the widely cited paper by Briffa and colleagues pointing out the decline in boreal forest growth since the 1950's relative to the temperature trends that would be expected to produce increased growth. This issue and the implications for Paleoclimate studies are widely debated and given much provenance in the recent IPCC reports. Putting this to one side Savval and Berninger choose to adopt some dendroclimate techniques, the implications of which for their analysis they then fail to discuss, and choose not to use other dendroclimatic techniques or results of previous work, specifically the construction of site chronologies and the descriptions of the climate responses of trees in their regions. The findings of this paper depend critically on the methods used to account for the expected reduction in radical ring width as a function of stem expansion as the tree grows and in the validity of the statistical model used to identify and remove the influence of climate variability on ring width variation. The authors' use three forms to of the measurements they have extracted from the publicly available tree ring data bank. In the first they use the measurements directly. The early radial growth measurements over the period 1920-1940 cannot be directly compared to measurements from the same trees in later periods because of the well known thinning in the measurements as tree age, so the ratio approach (see figure 2A) is invalid. The use of negative exponential functions (figure 2B) to remove the effect is prone to end fitting problems and effective response (in a time-series filtering context) is unpredictable. Also it seems very unlikely that the residuals from these functions could produce data virtually identical to the original data as is implied in Figure 2. Similarly the use of 'blind' regression to remove the climate effect is undesirable (see earlier comments) and is not likely to have no effect on the data trends as is implied in figure 2C. Then we come on to the analysis of the association between tree decline and N and S pollution. There is no clear statement of why the sites used were chosen. There is strong Finnish/Western Siberia bias with 5 or 6 spatial outliers. It is worrying that associations (illustrated in figure 3) between tree growth and pollutant loading are strongly influenced by 6 points showing high numbers of trees with growth differences (between earlier and later times) for low pollution loading. Without these points, then is no relationship. We are not informed where these points are? We also do not know what the interpretation of growth differences at each site means - is it a consequence of poor detrending? Is it statistically significant? To me figure 3 merely shows that high S generally means high N. In figure 3B, just as many sites show positive as show negative residuals for high N and S. Similarly, in figure 4 the data shows barely significant results and for the 'cold March' cases the result is highly leveraged by a single very high S deposition site. No information is provided about this site. Overall I find the study opaque and the conclusions not demonstrably supported by the analysis. I recommend rejection. Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): I. General This paper examines 20th century trends in tree ring width of Scots pine in northernmost (60-70 degN) Eurasia. The authors find that age-adjusted tree growth decreased, and that decrease follows the spatial pattern of anthropogenic sulfur deposition, partly offset by anthropogenic nitrogen deposition (which is taken to have a fertilizing effect). While the impacts of sulfur and nitrogen pollution on forests and on agriculture, both in temperate and boreal zones and in China and India, have been the topic of much study, I believe that the this paper is important in that it documents the impact of sulfur deposition on a wide swath of boreal forest, and would be of interest to a broad earth science community. I find the statistical arguments used for a significant reduction in tree growth linked with sulfur deposition adequately convincing, with some qualifications as outlined below. II. Broader scientific issues I would recommend publication in Nature Geoscience, but suggest that the paper would attract more interest if the authors more explicitly address the implications of their findings for current questions about the carbon cycle, atmospheric chemistry, and boreal climate change. In particular: 1) Discussion of the negative impact of anthropogenic sulfate (and nitrate!) in temperate USA/Canada and Europe has focused on acid rain and resultant cation leaching as a mechanism for forest decline, whereas in this paper the authors focus on direct damage to leaves by SO2. Why would the latter mechanism be expected to be more important than the former in boreal forests? Can the effects of the two mechanisms be distinguished with this data set? 2) An earlier paper of mine (NY Krakauer, JT Randerson [2003], Do volcanic eruptions enhance or diminish net primary production? Evidence from tree rings, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 17[4], 1118, doi: 10.1029/2003GB002076) used ITRDB series to show that narrow tree rings are found in the years following volcanic eruptions that release large amounts of sulfur into the upper atmosphere, with the effect being particularly pronounced in coniferous trees, including pines, in Eurasia north of 60 degN. I attributed this response to summer cooling and shorter growing seasons caused by sulfate aerosol scattering of sunlight, rather than to direct impacts of sulfur on trees. Comparing with the current paper, the following questions arise: a) Could the negative response of tree growth to volcanic eruptions be directly due to sulfur deposition, rather than to the climate impacts of sulfate in the atmosphere, as I'd hypothesized? How do levels of sulfate deposition at high latitudes following volcanic eruptions compare to those found by the authors to impact tree growth in the 20th century? b) Conversely, could the negative association between sulfur deposition and tree growth found by the authors be due to local cooling induced by pollution haze rather than to the direct effects of sulfur on leaves? What evidence is there for the climate impact of industrial pollution in this zone from e.g. weather stations? 3) An increasing trend in satellite-measured surface greenness (NDVI), roughly corresponding to leaf area, has been found since 1981 in boreal Eurasia, as well as elsewhere. To what extent could this increasing greenness represent recovery from past pollution damage, as compared with the conventional attributions to longer growing season, CO2 fertilization, and N deposition (or perhaps a more complex synergy - e.g., because springs are warmer, trees are less vulnerable to sulfur damage)? What basis is there for generalizing from the current results, in Scots Pine, to the Eurasian boreal forest or parts thereof? III. Specific methodological and presentation comments 1) Please clarify the map symbols used in Figure 1. 2) Please show as a supplementary map the distribution of S and N deposition from the datasets used, allowing readers to visualize the size of the area in which tree growth has been hampered by pollution. 3) Ring width will, in general, change systematically with tree age, interfering with the detection of climate or pollution influence. The authors detrend their ring series with exponential-decay fits, but if tree growth systematically deviates somewhat from an exponential decay, a residual trend will remain. The authors also try to detrend by the site mean age-width relationship, but because most sites tend to be almost even-aged this cannot be fully achieved. Supplementary Fig. 1 suggests that the (residual?) age effect is small compared to the observed 20th century growth suppression, but another possible test would be to apply the same procedures to 19th century tree rings (in 20-year periods and so on) and show that, because of the absence of pollution, no significant decadal trend is found. 4) "Using gridded maps of oxidized (wet and dry) sulphur and nitrogen depositions across Europe and Eastern Russia, we revealed a close relationship between percentage of trees per site that increased growth in the period between 1970 and 1990 relative to the period 1940 to 1960 and logarithms of oxidized nitrogen and oxidized sulphur depositions (R= 0.43, p = 0.02) (Fig. 3A)." (p. 3) Are R and p for the multiple regression? Please clarify. 5) Are the error bars in Figure 2 standard errors across the 40 sites? Please clarify. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS 841. 2008-07-25 07:39:52 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:39:52 -0400 from: k.ziemelis@nature.com subject: NATURE: Decision on Nature manuscript 2008-05-04767A to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 10058 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Colleague Thank you for your help with the manuscript entitled "Non-uniform interhemispheric temperature trends over the past 550 years." by Dr Duncan 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 Karl Ziemelis Physical Sciences Editor, Nature Nature's author and policy information sites are at www.nature.com/nature/submit/. Reviewers' comments: Referee #1(Remarks to the Author) This paper reports on an important new reconstruction of temperature from the Southern Hemisphere covering the last 550 years. This is an important achievement, and clearly merits publication in the scientific literature. The authors are to be commended for this. However, I am unable to recommend this for publication in Nature. The analyses presented with that new record, and the conclusions drawn from that, are speculative and interesting, but are not firmly rooted enough to merit publication in a journal intended for such an interdisciplinary readership. These results need to be refined and further tested before they might warrant publication in Nature. I offer the comments below in the spirit of constructive criticism. My feeling is that this manuscript should be published in a more specialized journal after taking into account the comments below. Specific comments 1. The new record described is meant to represent an all-New Zealand temperature record. However, it is by no means clear what relationship this has to larger regions of the Southern Hemisphere. Is this record indicative of larger scale SH temperature variations? There is really no evaluation along these lines, and without this perspective the paper is severely hampered. For example, see the statement in lines 3-6 from bottom of page 4. What is the basis for this? 2. The analysis moves directly to an examination of a time series constructed by subtracting the NZ record from the NH record. This seems to miss the step of a thorough examination of the NZ and NH records by themselves. How much of the character of the difference time series comes from the NH series, and how much from the NZ series? Is there a 30-60 year enhanced variance in the NH record by itself? In the NZ record by itself? Along these lines it would have been quite useful to see a coherence analysis. Do the peaks in the wavelet spectrum come mainly from the NH time series? If so, then does the NZ time series really add anything? If not, is there power in the NZ time series at these time scales? What is the source? 3. Is there a physical basis for adding the IPO and AMO signals? The spatial pattern of the AMO is clear, in that it is a monopole and would be expected to project coherently onto NH temperature. However, it is unclear what the projection of the IPO would be onto NH temperature, since it is a far more structured pattern with positives and negatives. This needs some explanation and a physical discussion. The fact that the correlation appears better when the two time series are added is not a sufficient justification without a physical basis. 4. p. 3, top The phrase "... efforts to incorporat this variation into climate models ..." is a bit awkward. Models are constructed from the known physical laws of the climate system, plus paramaterizations of unresolved processes. The variability produced by such models is then what is seen in extended simulations - there is no "a priori" attempt to include a certain mode of variability, such as ENSO. 5. p. 6, lines 8-9 from top This statement is opaque to me. Please elaborate. Why that time scale? 6. p. 6, lines 1-7 These statements are merely another way to describe the temporal behavior of the time series, but really do not add any physical insights. 7. It is unclear if the authors are proposing that there is a physical link between NH and NZ temperatures (such that when the NH warms, NZ cools by some physical mechanism). If so, what is that link? If not, is the behavior seen merely dominated by the NH series? Referee #2(Remarks to the Author) Non-uniform interhemispheric temperature trends over the past 550 years By R. Duncan et al The basic message proposed by the authors in this manuscript is that the Northern Hemisphere mean annual temperature varies, largely out of phase, with annual average Southern Hemisphere temperatures on a characteristic timescale of about 30-60 years. One might query whether this is saying much of interest, but the authors couch this result in the context of statements about the roles of natural versus anthropogenically driven inter-hemispheric temperature differences. If the paper was to provide insight into the specific role of tropospheric aerosols and the validity of the way they have been included in IPCC AR4 models to achieve greater consistency between observed temperatures and forced GCM model experiments then this would provide a strong case for publication. However, I do not feel that the manuscript does anything like this . Nor does the manuscript really confirm that an understanding of the workings of the IPO or AMO are critical for "understanding and modelling future climate changes" to any greater degree than was already understood on the basis of instrumental analyses or model experiments. The primary mode of instrumental temperature variability across both the North and South Hemispheres over the 20th century, comprises the 3-stage wide-scale warming illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of Parker et al. (2007). Understanding of regional and decadal-scale differences in temperature changes over land and ocean and between North and South are relevant for framing "uncertainties" in attribution studies and projections of likely warming rates, their significance on decadal scales should not be overstated. For example, the variance explained by the AMO and IPO in large-scale analyses of instrumental temperature variability in the 20th century is on the order of a few per cent (e.g. Parker et al., 2007). This paper is not able to advance our understanding of the causes or even quantify the changing amplitude of the IPO or AMO or the net effect of their combined influence over time. Looking at the new data the authors present, it is not clear to me that the evidence for "out of phase" cycling between the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions and the New Zealand reconstructions is particularly strong or constant over the whole length of the series. Any (even white-noise) bandpass filtered data series , when superimposed, would show periods of in phase and out of phase behaviour. The series shown by the authors are out of phase sometimes and not at others. We can deduce little about the past behaviour of the IPO or AMO for either circumstance. The characterisation of the dominant multi-decadal patterns of variability of the so-called IPO varies in spatial signature and temporal importance depending on whether SST or NMAT data are used as the basis data set (e.g. see Figure 3 of Parker et al., 2007 - quoted by authors). Regardless of which are used the relationships between New Zealand temperature variations and temperatures in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, associated with changing IPO status are complex (and possibly seasonally dependent). This suggests that using New Zealand as a surrogate for mean Southern Hemisphere temperatures on the decadal timescale, may be unfounded. The authors imply that their data are being used to imply details of "contrasting temperature trends between the northern and southern hemispheres" and that these data are the only data available to compare against the northern hemisphere average data. While it is true that instrumental data show the AMO and IPO to be negatively correlated with New Zealand temperatures, temperatures in other areas of the Southern Hemisphere are not. The authors do not present a formal phase analysis or, for that matter, compare their New Zealand bandpassed data with those from temperature series representing other regions of the Southern Hemisphere that do exist (in South America, Tasmania and even New Zealand i.e. as published by Cook and colleagues). The work by Cook has specifically pointed out a characteristic peak in the variance spectrum at around 30-60 years in Tasmanian temperature and he carried out an analysis of its changing significance through time using singular spectrum analysi s. A similar detailed formal comparison of the covariance between the various available Southern Hemisphere data (and the Northern Hemisphere data) seems justified. Personally, I consider the plots of the Wavelet spectra shown in Supplementary Figure 1 of little value in this regard. It is true that Figure 2 of the manuscript, at first sight, appears to show an intriguing, even compelling, correlation between the series representing the sum of the IPO and AMO and the Northern Hemisphere/New Zealand temperature difference (specifically Figure 2c). However, previous analyses of instrumental data show New Zealand temperatures to be negatively correlated with each of (and so also the sum of ) the IPO and AMO. As these modes describe contrasting temperatures in the North and South Hemispheres it is to be expected that the Northern Hemisphere minus New Zealand temperature ( or estimated temperature fitted against it) will correlate positively . In summary I just can not see that there is enough new information or new insight provided in this manuscript to support publication. * 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 3954. 2008-07-28 08:58:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:58:33 +0100 from: "Colin Harpham" subject: RE: [Fwd: Current versions of the WG chapter asnd annex] to: , Chris Can you let me have the latest stand alone version of rainsim (which hopefully has fixed the Aldergrove problem. Cheers Colin -----Original Message----- From: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk [mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 25 July 2008 20:56 To: c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk; c.harpham@uea.ac.uk Cc: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Subject: [Fwd: Current versions of the WG chapter asnd annex] Chris, Colin, This is my last email before going on holiday. So there were more comments ! I've dealt with them on a hard copy on the way home, as they were all fairly trivial. Colin is going to get revised Figs 5.4/5.5 done. I got the PMG to agree to just LHR and just the base RCM run. So all can be done in b/w. See below and I can add them in between Aug 4 and 20. The main surprise was that Bob Watson wanted the whole report to go out for peer review. DEFRA and MOHC have talked him out of this, but the they want Ch 5 and Annex 4 in a separate report, so there will be one more UKCIP08 report - ours. Roger says this will make no difference as you'll download the lot in a pdf from the web site. Not sure if this is a way of dropping us at the last minute, but I think not. It may be a way for MOHC to distance itsefl from the WG. I'll try and contact Bob Watson when I'm back. As for the extremes - still no agreement. I got them to agree on Tx > = 25.0 well whatever UKCIP02 did re > or equal to. Also Tn < 0.0. As for precip simple ones like greatest 5 day precip and either R90T or R90N - see the email from Roger re what the Met Office are doing in the way of observational plots. Apart from the future we should get the batch runs done on WG present so we can compare with 61-90 values directly from the obs. No idea when these might come, but would make useful validation. As for teh future - Geoff will be sending new change factors on Aug 19. Yes they are doing another load - changing the carbon cycle. He says you have some change factors from Dave, so don't need them from Ag. Sarah will look into getting them from BADC. Either way they will change on Aug 19. Getting the WG present done will help with validation. Oh and Steph from UKCIP wants all final version of the diagrams by Aug 20 !!! Yes I know - Roger is getting worried and prattling on. I'll call and see how you're getting on on Aug 4 or 5. Hopefully you're bit Colin won't take long and can be done next week. Maybe best to do all ~10 locations for the one RCM. Odd things going on at DEFRA. DAvid Warrilow has been acting head of a group for 2 years. He applied for the post but someone else got it. So he is back doing climate events now - whatever that is. Someone called Nafees Meah from food securities is taking over the section in the autumn! Cheers Phil ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Current versions of the WG chapter asnd annex From: f028@uea.ac.uk Date: Fri, July 25, 2008 8:42 pm To: roger.street@ukcip.org.uk kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger, Kathryn, These are our changes to Ch 5 and Annex 4 so far. They don't include the changes for UKCIP comments. Geoff gave me those at the meeting. Chris didn't have these. I'll add these in during the week of Aug 4. I can send back with new Figures from Colin for 5.4/5.5 on Aug 20. Cheers Phil 3010. 2008-07-28 12:11:09 ______________________________________________________ cc: J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk date: Mon Jul 28 12:11:09 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Paper submitted to Holocene to: weidner@gfz-potsdam.de Dear Kathrin First let me apologise for the long time it has taken to get referees comments and then to discuss with the editor. Unfortunately, I have to say straight away that we have decided not to publish this article in The Holocene. The reason is not to do with the scientific rigour of the results you describe but rather because we feel (with strong guidance from the referees) that the content and implications of the work are too specialised for this journal. Both referees ( and other informal opinions) agree that this paper is more suited to a tree or tree-ring specialist journal . I copy below some comments, one more detailed than the other , in the hope that these may be useful in considering a re-submission perhaps to a journal like Tree-Ring Research , Dendrochronologia or Trees. I realise this this decision is likely to be disappointing , particularly as no fundamental objections have been raised regarding the science. However, with strong pressure on space and a truly interdisciplinary audience we must take a rather strict line on general relevance of the articles published. I hope you will understand and accept the reasons for this decision. I am sure the paper would be rapidly accepted in a more specialist journal. Again I am sorry that it has taken us this long to reach this decision , but we wished to consult widely before reaching it. with best wishes and thanks for the submission. Keith Comments Referee 1 The important bit of this paper is the observation that larch bud moth attacks do not seem to have much impact on carbon isotope ratios. Other groups have found the same, and Matthias Saurer has a PhD student working on this. She may be working at the same site. This is an interesting finding for the dendro community, since Larch is such an important archive species, but I am not sure it is important enough to warrant publication in an interdisciplinary journal like The Holocene. One of the forestry or tree ring journals would be more appropriate. The important observation is only a small part of this manuscript. The rest includes a bit of statistical treatment, which I did not find very convincing. There are better ways to deal with discreet events. There is also a large section trying to explain the influence of bud moth attack on the carbon and oxygen isotopes, which I found very speculative. In conclusion I think it would be best to reject on the grounds that the material is not suitable for publication in The Holocene. Referee 2 Consequences of larch budmoth outbreaks on the climate significance of ring width and stable isotopes in larch Weidner et al. Referee 1 This is a small but interesting study on the problems caused by larch budmoth for climate reconstruction, and the potential of stable isotopes for overcoming them. To my mind the most interesting and novel aspect of the study are the observations of the effects of LBM attack on isotopic discrimination and the discussion of the possible physiological factors causing the effects. There is little or nothing in the literature on the effect of insect attack on stable isotopes in trees. The paper is generally well written but would benefit from editing by a native English speaker. In some places the language obscures the meaning. I have made some suggestions on phraseology in the comments below. The results are of broad interest, but the manuscript requires modification before it is acceptable for publication. Main Points 1. The authors initially use filtered (standardized) tree ring data to examine the effects of LBM outbreaks on these parameters (Fig. 3). They also use standardized isotope and temperature data in Fig.5; but no results using standardized precipitation data are presented. Standardized data, however, are not used to investigate climate relationship; instead, raw data are used. The authors do not give a reason for this, and it provides grounds for confusion. It would not be standard practice to use only 10 trees and raw ring width data to examine ring width/climate relationships. The confusion is compounded by Figs 6A and B, one using standardized values and the other raw values of data. The figures are merely cited in the text (line 256) without any discussion, and I therefore see no point in their inclusion. I am somewhat surprised that the correlation coefficients for filtered standardized data and raw data are so similar. It looks like the r value for the standardized data would be significantly higher if it were not for one particularly deviant point in Fig. 6A. In fact, I cannot see a corresponding point in Fig. 6b; perhaps it is a result of the filtering process, but I would not have expected this. 2. The discussion on the possible physiological effects on LBM on isotopic discrimination seems generally well founded. However, the statement in line 325 (Since most the late years photosynthates ) raises some issues. The use of previous years photosynthates in conifers for earlywood growth, and the consequent effects on isotope values is a moot point in the literature, and there seems no overall consensus. The authors need to provide some evidence for this being the case in their trees. If the previous years photosynthates were a major contributor to earlywood, then one would expect a correlation with the previous years temperatures, especially in years of type 2 outbreak. 3. I cannot agree with the final sentence on the Conclusion (line393). It is only carbon isotopes that are hardly affected. Oxygen isotopes are significantly affected, but probably not to an extent that makes them unusable. We have no idea about hydrogen isotopes. 4. The main finding is that carbon isotope ratios seem little affected by outbreaks of LBM in that removal of values during outbreak years does not significantly change that value of the correlation coefficient with temperature (lines 251-258). This certainly seems true for their observation; but I suspect that the authors were lucky in that outbreak years tended to coincide with years of near average temperature, where effects on r values would be minimized. It may be that outbreaks (particularly of type 1) during years with abnormally high or low temperatures would have a much more significant effect on d^13C values. Other Points: Line 23 Suggest less instead of rather little 24 In particular instead of Especially 27 ; instead of , 31 importantly 44 connected to rather than connected with 54 the following called outbreak.. does not make sense 127 It would be helpful to refer to Fig 2 during the discussion of the various types of LBM attack. 129 The suggestion that trees are defoliated runs counter to the statement (line 56) that the leaves are not eaten away. 150 Comma required after behaviour 154 Sentence is unclear. Suggest: similarity in behaviour between cellulose and wood isotopes, we decided 172 Some details are required of how the atmospheric correction was carried out. 187 Delete . after and. 242 Highly rather than strongly 247 Delete do and insert generally after though (Fig. 4 shows that some individual trees give higher r values than the mean of the trees. 275 Delete do 276 proof of rather than proof for 289-91 This sentence need rewording. Suggest: As e[D] and e[C] are constant, changes in C[i] during infestation are decisive in determining the effects on d^13C; however, the physiological basis for this has not been investigated in detail. 294 Delete therewith andinsert subsequently after stomates. 296 Suggest as indicated by instead of observation 297 Insert brackets around D. 299 A very awkward sentence needs rephrasing 308 The latter, however, have rather than has. Of more importance rather than essential 320 years of weak outbreak. 332 Delete f. ex. 336 Rearrange sentence. The time during the growth..starts should be decisive 348 Delete a before removal. 353 measure 357-8 Unclear. Does it mean that some of the processes involved in fractionation are lost? 358 In particular rather than Especially. 361 More closely rather than closer. 367 In contrast to rather than contrary to 373 during rather than along; prevent rather than aggravate 412 Rubli not Rublin -- 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/ 878. 2008-07-29 11:48:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: Karl Taylor , bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr, Curtis Covey , "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" , mlatif@ifm-geomar.de, Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov, Andreas Hense , Asgeir Sorteberg , Erich Roeckner , Evgeny Volodin , "Gary L. Russell" , Gavin Schmidt , GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov, Greg Flato , Helge Drange , Jason Lowe , Jean-Francois Royer , Jean-Louis Dufresne , Jozef Syktus , Julia Slingo , Kimoto Masahide , Peter Gent , Qingquan Li , Seita Emori , Seung-Ki Min , Shan Sun , Shoji Kusunoki , Shuting Yang , Silvio Gualdi , Stephanie Legutke , Tongwen Wu , Tony Hirst , Toru Nozawa , Wilhelm May , Won-Tae Kwon , Ying Xu , Yong Luo , Yongqiang Yu , Kamal Puri , Tim Stockdale , Gabi Hegerl , James Murphy , Marco Giorgetta , George Boer , Myles Allen , claudia tebaldi , Ben Santer , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Dáithí Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Francis Zwiers , Ken Sperber , Dave Bader , Mike MacCracken , boyle5@llnl.gov, Stephen Klein , "A. Pier Siebesma" , William Rossow , Chris Bretherton , George Tselioudis , Mark Webb , Sandrine Bony , James Hack , Martin Miller , Ken Kunkel , Christian Jakob , Kathy Hibbard , "Eyring, Veronika" , pasb@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, giorgi@ictp.trieste.it, c.lequere@uea.ac.uk, naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at, stephen.griffies@noaa.gov, Pierre Friedlingstein , Olivier Boucher , Bala Govindasamy , Jonathan Gregory , Chris Jones , "Jones, Gareth S" , David Lobell , peter gleckler , Cath Senior , Keith Williams , "stephen e. schwartz" , David Easterling , Inez Fung , Duane Waliser , William Collins , Ken Caldeira , Dave Randall , Joyce Penner , Anna Pirani , Bjorn Stevens , Ronald Stouffer date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:48:29 -0600 from: Jerry Meehl subject: Re: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 to: "Cox, Peter" Hi Peter, How long will you be in Snowmass? I get there tomorrow late afternoon and will be there for the sessions Thursday and Friday. Ron and I were planning on re-visiting the experimental design more then, and if you could join in that would be great. Regarding your point in favor of using the RCPs for carbon cycle feedback, I think Ron and I arrived at this conclusion independently while we both attended a US-Japan workshop in Colorado a few weeks ago. The Japanese have performed a proof-of-concept experiment using two idealized mitigation scenarios and basically computed numbers for the Aspen experiments you originally proposed in 2006. There were two key additional points that we noted--one was that they started from a pre-industrial control run so they had 20th and 21st century in the "climate-carbon feedback" contrasted to "no-climate carbon feedback" allowable emissions plots. Second, they had some kind of 20th century "observations" of carbon emissions they plotted on their allowable emissions graphs to show that their model with carbon-climate feedback actually tracked those observations for 20th century. Since there are so few observations to compare carbon cycle feedback to, this seemed like a fairly compelling reason to use RCPs, which is what you also note below. I think Karl and Ron had lumped the carbon cycle feedback experiments in the 1% runs both because this had come up as a possibility in the post-Aspen WGCM meeting in Victoria in 2006, and because it could possibly present a more pleasing context to evaluate all feedbacks, carbon cycle and all others. However, on further review, in addition to the points you raised, deriving allowable emissions from RCPs allows a check to what the IAMs used for emissions in the first place (and used to derive concentrations used in the ESMs). Also, it seems to me that carbon cycle feedback falls into a new category of feedback that we in the AOGCM world are not used to evaluating. We must depend on the advice from you and others in that community. Though it's tempting to think that everything can be boiled out of 1% runs, I think those are most useful for feedbacks basically "managed" by the atmosphere (like clouds, water vapor, etc.). The original Aspen concept for carbon cycle feedback always depended on using actual mitigation scenarios, and I think we're coming around again to agreeing on that. Another point is that the cloud feedback community will make a proposal to WGCM to enlarge the idealized 1% feedback experiment list, so that makes separating out the carbon cycle feedback experiments in a separate category using RCPs more compelling. Hopefully we can discuss this more Thursday. Jerry Cox, Peter wrote: > Dear Karl and Ron > > Thanks for this very thorough document. > > Generally speaking I think we should be focusing much more on realistic policy relevant scenarios rather than 1% per year type experiments. There are two reasons for this: > 1) Most now consider a ("business as usual") 1% per year scenario not to represent a viable future. So detailed information on these scenarios is less and less relevant to people outside of the GCM modeling community. > 2) More realistic scenarios allow us to utilize observations to validate models/reduce uncertainties in a way that idealized scenarios do not. > > So I am in favour of diagnosing feedbacks in the more policy-relevant RCP scenarios wherever possible. I say this even though Ron, who is sitting beside me here now in Snowmass, has told me that this makes identifying model differences more difficult. Ron also tells me that this is a fight not worth fighting, but I can't resist commenting anyway..:-) > > More usefully I would like to respond to your PS. regarding the diagnosis of carbon cycle feedbacks. I strongly believe these should be diagnosed relative to the RCP scenarios. Carbon cycle feedbacks cannot easily be reduced to an equilibrium response plus a timescale. Carbon uptake essentially relies on disequilibrium and is therefore dependent on scenario, so I don't think it is very helpful to define c cycle feedback relative to idealised 1% per year runs. There are also the potential for significant "cold-start" problems with the carbon cycle (as land and ocean uptake are both highly dependent on history). So I vote for diagnosing carbon cycle feedbacks (at least) relative to the RCP scenarios. > > All the best > > Peter > > PLEASE NOTE NEW MOBILE NUMBER > Prof Peter Cox, > Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics, > Room 336, Harrison Building, > School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, > University of Exeter, > Exeter, > EX4 4QF, > > Email: P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk, > Tel (univ): 01392 269220, > Tel (mob) : 07827 412572 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13@llnl.gov] > Sent: Tue 22-Jul-08 09:25 AM > To: bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr; Curtis Covey; Jerry Meehl; Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist); mlatif@ifm-geomar.de; Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov; Andreas Hense; Asgeir Sorteberg; Erich Roeckner; Evgeny Volodin; Gary L. Russell; Gavin Schmidt; GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov; Greg Flato; Helge Drange; Jason Lowe; Jean-Francois Royer; Jean-Louis Dufresne; Jozef Syktus; Julia Slingo; Kimoto Masahide; Peter Gent; Qingquan Li; Seita Emori; Seung-Ki Min; Shan Sun; Shoji Kusunoki; Shuting Yang; Silvio Gualdi; Stephanie Legutke; Tongwen Wu; Tony Hirst; Toru Nozawa; Wilhelm May; Won-Tae Kwon; Ying Xu; Yong Luo; Yongqiang Yu; Kamal Puri; Tim Stockdale; Gabi Hegerl; James Murphy; Marco Giorgetta; George Boer; Myles Allen; claudia tebaldi; Ben Santer; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Dáithí Stone; Stott, Peter; Francis Zwiers; Toru Nozawa; Ken Sperber; Dave Bader; Mike MacCracken; boyle5@llnl.gov; Stephen Klein; A. Pier Siebesma; William Rossow; Chris Bretherton; George Tselioudis; Mark Webb; Sandrine Bony; James Hack; Martin Miller; Ken Kunkel; Christian Jakob; Kathy Hibbard; Eyring, Veronika; pasb@lsce.saclay.cea.fr; giorgi@ictp.trieste.it; c.lequere@uea.ac.uk; naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at; stephen.griffies@noaa.gov; Cox, Peter; Pierre Friedlingstein; Olivier Boucher; Bala Govindasamy; Jonathan Gregory; Chris Jones; Jones, Gareth S; David Lobell; peter gleckler; Cath Senior; Keith Williams; stephen e. schwartz; David Easterling; Inez Fung; Duane Waliser; William Collins; Ken Caldeira; Dave Randall; Joyce Penner; Anna Pirani; Bjorn Stevens > Cc: Ronald Stouffer > Subject: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 > > Dear all, > > As most of you know, plans are well underway for a coordinated set of > climate model experiments, which will constitute the Fifth phase of > CMIP. Attached is a description of the proposed experiments. As > members of the CMIP panel, which was established by the WCRP's Working > Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to help coordinate this activity, we > are seeking your comments. Considerable thought and input from a wide > community of scientists have already contributed to the CMIP5 design, > and therefore major changes are not envisioned. Competing interests and > various tradeoffs have been carefully considered before coming up with > the proposed suite of experiments. Please keep in mind that modeling > groups have limited resources and the experiment must represent a > compromise among various priorities. We will not be able to please everyone. > > The CMIP panel must present a final design plan for CMIP5 to the WGCM at > its annual meeting in September, just two months from now. Given this > tight deadline (which cannot slip if the CMIP5 results are to be > available in time for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report). For this > reason, we ask that you send us (taylor13@llnl.gov and > Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov) any comments and suggestions you have by > September 1, 2008. > > Feel free to pass this document on to anyone you think will have an > interest in it. We invite comments from scientists associated with all > aspects of the climate change issue, spanning the three IPCC working groups. > > With best regards, > Karl Taylor (PCMDI) and Ron Stouffer (Chair, CMIP panel). > > P.S. Please note that there are remaining details yet to be worked out. > In particular it has been suggested that experiments 4.2 a&b described > in the document should be performed in conjunction with the so-called > RCP-driven experiments given in Table 2 rather than with the idealized > (1% CO2 increase per year) experiments of Table 4. Experiments 4.2 > allow us to separate out the climate-carbon cycle feedback. The original > proposal was in fact to do this separation for the RCP runs, but several > scientists offered compelling arguments for switching this diagnostic > analysis to the 1% runs. Some of the reasons for making this change > from the original proposal can be found in section 9. Still, there are > some scientists who continue to express a preference for the original > design. Please let us know what you think about this. > > > > > > > > > 2045. 2008-07-29 23:42:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Cox, Peter" , Karl Taylor , bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr, Curtis Covey , "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" , mlatif@ifm-geomar.de, Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov, Andreas Hense , Asgeir Sorteberg , Erich Roeckner , Evgeny Volodin , "Gary L. Russell" , Gavin Schmidt , GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov, Greg Flato , Helge Drange , Jason Lowe , Jean-Francois Royer , Jean-Louis Dufresne , Jozef Syktus , Julia Slingo , Kimoto Masahide , Peter Gent , Qingquan Li , Seita Emori , Seung-Ki Min , Shan Sun , Shoji Kusunoki , Shuting Yang , Silvio Gualdi , Stephanie Legutke , Tongwen Wu , Tony Hirst , Toru Nozawa , Wilhelm May , Won-Tae Kwon , Ying Xu , Yong Luo , Yongqiang Yu , Kamal Puri , Tim Stockdale , Gabi Hegerl , James Murphy , George Boer , Myles Allen , claudia tebaldi , Ben Santer , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Dáithí Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Francis Zwiers , Ken Sperber , Dave Bader , Mike MacCracken , boyle5@llnl.gov, Stephen Klein , "A. Pier Siebesma" , William Rossow , Chris Bretherton , George Tselioudis , Mark Webb , Sandrine Bony , James Hack , Martin Miller , Ken Kunkel , Christian Jakob , Kathy Hibbard , "Eyring, Veronika" , pasb@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, giorgi@ictp.trieste.it, c.lequere@uea.ac.uk, naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at, stephen.griffies@noaa.gov, Pierre Friedlingstein , Olivier Boucher , Bala Govindasamy , Jonathan Gregory , Chris Jones , "Jones, Gareth S" , David Lobell , peter gleckler , Cath Senior , Keith Williams , "stephen e. schwartz" , David Easterling , Inez Fung , Duane Waliser , William Collins , Ken Caldeira , Dave Randall , Joyce Penner , Anna Pirani , Bjorn Stevens , Ronald Stouffer date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:42:45 +0200 from: Marco Giorgetta subject: Re: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 to: Jerry Meehl -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear Jerry, I won't be at the Snowmass meeting. Here are a few thoughts about 1% vs. RCP runs. The experience of the Japanese colleagues indeed indicates that the concept of the concentration driven C cycle experiments is useful. Within the ENSEMBLES project we are going through a similar exercise, essentially running our ECHAM5/MPIOM based C cycle model in two modes: (1) forced by "RCPs" (ENSEMBLES uses SRES A1B and a new 450 ppm stabilization scenario produced by the IMAGE group) and (2) forced by emissions. In both cases land use change is prescribed and accounted in the C budget. Our experience is that the 20C emissions derived from the "RCP" runs approximate well the emission data used for the "emission" runs. We learned from this (1) that this concept is interesting and experiments are now on the way for the "future", and (2) that the model as a whole can be tuned in an acceptable manner such that a reasonable transient 20th century climate and C dispersion to the different pools can be simulated. As you see we are more or less on the way to explore the discussed experiments (emission driven, RCP driven). No-climate feedback experiments could follow along this track, and they would be politically more relevant than experiments based on 1% CO2 increase per year. This would support the idea to change from the 1% runs to RCP rund. The only disadvantage is the complexity of the simulations, in terms of the many different forcings. The setup of the 1% runs is simple and it is likely that the participating groups in the end really have a comparable forcing. This simplicity also facilitates the interpretation and the model intercomparison, which I think was an important reason for such experiments in C4MIP. The same advantages would hold for a slower fixed increase experiment, for example 0.7% instead of 1% annual increase. If the 1 % increase is unrealistic. The complex setup of 20C or scenario runs may result in a number of differences between different models (as it happened for example with O3 in AR4) and therefore make the "understanding" of the results and of model differences harder. A good point of Peter Cox is of course that the dynamics of the C cycle depends on the degree of disequilibrium, which is different in a 1% run, an RCP run with variable increase of CO2, or for example a 0.7% run. If you think of "no climate feedback" RCP runs, would you propose these in addition to expts. 4.2 and 4.3c of Karl's list of experiments, or as replacement? Would you propose these experiments for the the future only or also for the 20th century? Would you chose the RCP8.5 scenario, because it is also used in expt. 3.3? Best regards, Marco Jerry Meehl wrote: > Hi Peter, > > How long will you be in Snowmass? I get there tomorrow late afternoon > and will be there for the sessions Thursday and Friday. Ron and I were > planning on re-visiting the experimental design more then, and if you > could join in that would be great. > > Regarding your point in favor of using the RCPs for carbon cycle > feedback, I think Ron and I arrived at this conclusion independently > while we both attended a US-Japan workshop in Colorado a few weeks ago. > The Japanese have performed a proof-of-concept experiment using two > idealized mitigation scenarios and basically computed numbers for the > Aspen experiments you originally proposed in 2006. There were two key > additional points that we noted--one was that they started from a > pre-industrial control run so they had 20th and 21st century in the > "climate-carbon feedback" contrasted to "no-climate carbon feedback" > allowable emissions plots. Second, they had some kind of 20th century > "observations" of carbon emissions they plotted on their allowable > emissions graphs to show that their model with carbon-climate feedback > actually tracked those observations for 20th century. Since there are > so few observations to compare carbon cycle feedback to, this seemed > like a fairly compelling reason to use RCPs, which is what you also note > below. > > I think Karl and Ron had lumped the carbon cycle feedback experiments in > the 1% runs both because this had come up as a possibility in the > post-Aspen WGCM meeting in Victoria in 2006, and because it could > possibly present a more pleasing context to evaluate all feedbacks, > carbon cycle and all others. However, on further review, in addition to > the points you raised, deriving allowable emissions from RCPs allows a > check to what the IAMs used for emissions in the first place (and used > to derive concentrations used in the ESMs). Also, it seems to me that > carbon cycle feedback falls into a new category of feedback that we in > the AOGCM world are not used to evaluating. We must depend on the > advice from you and others in that community. Though it's tempting to > think that everything can be boiled out of 1% runs, I think those are > most useful for feedbacks basically "managed" by the atmosphere (like > clouds, water vapor, etc.). The original Aspen concept for carbon cycle > feedback always depended on using actual mitigation scenarios, and I > think we're coming around again to agreeing on that. > > Another point is that the cloud feedback community will make a proposal > to WGCM to enlarge the idealized 1% feedback experiment list, so that > makes separating out the carbon cycle feedback experiments in a separate > category using RCPs more compelling. > > Hopefully we can discuss this more Thursday. > > Jerry > > Cox, Peter wrote: >> Dear Karl and Ron >> >> Thanks for this very thorough document. >> >> Generally speaking I think we should be focusing much more on >> realistic policy relevant scenarios rather than 1% per year type >> experiments. There are two reasons for this: >> 1) Most now consider a ("business as usual") 1% per year scenario not >> to represent a viable future. So detailed information on these >> scenarios is less and less relevant to people outside of the GCM >> modeling community. >> 2) More realistic scenarios allow us to utilize observations to >> validate models/reduce uncertainties in a way that idealized scenarios >> do not. >> So I am in favour of diagnosing feedbacks in the more policy-relevant >> RCP scenarios wherever possible. I say this even though Ron, who is >> sitting beside me here now in Snowmass, has told me that this makes >> identifying model differences more difficult. Ron also tells me that >> this is a fight not worth fighting, but I can't resist commenting >> anyway..:-) >> >> More usefully I would like to respond to your PS. regarding the >> diagnosis of carbon cycle feedbacks. I strongly believe these should >> be diagnosed relative to the RCP scenarios. Carbon cycle feedbacks >> cannot easily be reduced to an equilibrium response plus a timescale. >> Carbon uptake essentially relies on disequilibrium and is therefore >> dependent on scenario, so I don't think it is very helpful to define c >> cycle feedback relative to idealised 1% per year runs. There are also >> the potential for significant "cold-start" problems with the carbon >> cycle (as land and ocean uptake are both highly dependent on history). >> So I vote for diagnosing carbon cycle feedbacks (at least) relative to >> the RCP scenarios. >> >> All the best >> >> Peter >> >> PLEASE NOTE NEW MOBILE NUMBER >> Prof Peter Cox, >> Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics, >> Room 336, Harrison Building, >> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, >> University of Exeter, >> Exeter, >> EX4 4QF, >> >> Email: P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk, >> Tel (univ): 01392 269220, >> Tel (mob) : 07827 412572 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13@llnl.gov] >> Sent: Tue 22-Jul-08 09:25 AM >> To: bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr; Curtis Covey; Jerry Meehl; >> Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist); mlatif@ifm-geomar.de; >> Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov; Andreas Hense; Asgeir Sorteberg; Erich >> Roeckner; Evgeny Volodin; Gary L. Russell; Gavin Schmidt; >> GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov; Greg Flato; Helge Drange; Jason >> Lowe; Jean-Francois Royer; Jean-Louis Dufresne; Jozef Syktus; Julia >> Slingo; Kimoto Masahide; Peter Gent; Qingquan Li; Seita Emori; >> Seung-Ki Min; Shan Sun; Shoji Kusunoki; Shuting Yang; Silvio Gualdi; >> Stephanie Legutke; Tongwen Wu; Tony Hirst; Toru Nozawa; Wilhelm May; >> Won-Tae Kwon; Ying Xu; Yong Luo; Yongqiang Yu; Kamal Puri; Tim >> Stockdale; Gabi Hegerl; James Murphy; Marco Giorgetta; George Boer; >> Myles Allen; claudia tebaldi; Ben Santer; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; >> Phil Jones; David Karoly; Dáithí Stone; Stott, Peter; Francis Zwiers; >> Toru Nozawa; Ken Sperber; Dave Bader; Mike MacCracken; >> boyle5@llnl.gov; Stephen Klein; A. Pier Siebesma; William Rossow; >> Chris Bretherton; > George Tselioudis; Mark Webb; Sandrine Bony; James Hack; Martin Miller; > Ken Kunkel; Christian Jakob; Kathy Hibbard; Eyring, Veronika; > pasb@lsce.saclay.cea.fr; giorgi@ictp.trieste.it; c.lequere@uea.ac.uk; > naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at; stephen.griffies@noaa.gov; Cox, Peter; Pierre > Friedlingstein; Olivier Boucher; Bala Govindasamy; Jonathan Gregory; > Chris Jones; Jones, Gareth S; David Lobell; peter gleckler; Cath Senior; > Keith Williams; stephen e. schwartz; David Easterling; Inez Fung; Duane > Waliser; William Collins; Ken Caldeira; Dave Randall; Joyce Penner; Anna > Pirani; Bjorn Stevens >> Cc: Ronald Stouffer >> Subject: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 >> >> Dear all, >> >> As most of you know, plans are well underway for a coordinated set of >> climate model experiments, which will constitute the Fifth phase of >> CMIP. Attached is a description of the proposed experiments. As >> members of the CMIP panel, which was established by the WCRP's Working >> Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to help coordinate this activity, we >> are seeking your comments. Considerable thought and input from a wide >> community of scientists have already contributed to the CMIP5 design, >> and therefore major changes are not envisioned. Competing interests >> and various tradeoffs have been carefully considered before coming up >> with the proposed suite of experiments. Please keep in mind that >> modeling groups have limited resources and the experiment must >> represent a compromise among various priorities. We will not be able >> to please everyone. >> >> The CMIP panel must present a final design plan for CMIP5 to the WGCM >> at its annual meeting in September, just two months from now. Given >> this tight deadline (which cannot slip if the CMIP5 results are to be >> available in time for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report). For this >> reason, we ask that you send us (taylor13@llnl.gov and >> Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov) any comments and suggestions you have by >> September 1, 2008. >> Feel free to pass this document on to anyone you think will have an >> interest in it. We invite comments from scientists associated with >> all aspects of the climate change issue, spanning the three IPCC >> working groups. >> >> With best regards, >> Karl Taylor (PCMDI) and Ron Stouffer (Chair, CMIP panel). >> >> P.S. Please note that there are remaining details yet to be worked >> out. In particular it has been suggested that experiments 4.2 a&b >> described in the document should be performed in conjunction with the >> so-called RCP-driven experiments given in Table 2 rather than with the >> idealized (1% CO2 increase per year) experiments of Table 4. >> Experiments 4.2 allow us to separate out the climate-carbon cycle >> feedback. The original proposal was in fact to do this separation for >> the RCP runs, but several scientists offered compelling arguments for >> switching this diagnostic analysis to the 1% runs. Some of the >> reasons for making this change from the original proposal can be found >> in section 9. Still, there are some scientists who continue to >> express a preference for the original design. Please let us know what >> you think about this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > - -- Marco A. Giorgetta Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Bundesstr.53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany Tel./Fax : +49 (0)40 41173-358/-298 Email : marco.giorgetta@zmaw.de -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkiPjtUACgkQXnnmHpkSX2RISACfbchEzrKdzJMIrkNHK8frQE92 JZwAoI1N9pna6QUih+ApNxZ+0hjOx/YP =vy8G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 5016. 2008-07-30 11:25:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Cox, Peter" , Karl Taylor , , Curtis Covey , "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" , , , Andreas Hense , Asgeir Sorteberg , Erich Roeckner , Evgeny Volodin , "Gary L. Russell" , Gavin Schmidt , , Greg Flato , Helge Drange , Jean-Francois Royer , Jean-Louis Dufresne , Jozef Syktus , Julia Slingo , Kimoto Masahide , Peter Gent , Qingquan Li , Seita Emori , Seung-Ki Min , Shan Sun , Shoji Kusunoki , Shuting Yang , Silvio Gualdi , Stephanie Legutke , Tongwen Wu , Tony Hirst , Toru Nozawa , Wilhelm May , Won-Tae Kwon , Ying Xu , Yong Luo , Yongqiang Yu , Kamal Puri , Tim Stockdale , Gabi Hegerl , James Murphy , Marco Giorgetta , George Boer , Myles Allen , claudia tebaldi , Ben Santer , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Dáithí Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Francis Zwiers , Ken Sperber , Dave Bader , , Stephen Klein , "A. Pier Siebesma" , William Rossow , Chris Bretherton , George Tselioudis , Mark Webb , Sandrine Bony , James Hack , Martin Miller , Ken Kunkel , Christian Jakob , Kathy Hibbard , "Eyring, Veronika" , , , , , , Pierre Friedlingstein , Olivier Boucher , Bala Govindasamy , Jonathan Gregory , Chris Jones , "Jones, Gareth S" , David Lobell , peter gleckler , Cath Senior , Keith Williams , "stephen e. schwartz" , David Easterling , Inez Fung , Duane Waliser , William Collins , Ken Caldeira , Dave Randall , Joyce Penner , Anna Pirani , Bjorn Stevens , Ronald Stouffer date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:25:01 -0400 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 to: Jason Lowe , Jerry Meehl Dear Jason and Jerry (and Karl and Ron)--One of my suggestions on an earlier round was such a simulation--to determine how models might do and compare with a declining concentration (optimistic as such a scenario might be). The one you are doing would seem to have an overshoot on the forcing, but probably not (or not much) on the global average temperature due to lag effects in the system. It seems to me it would be worthwhile figuring out such a run that also got the temperature decreasing, so maybe returned to below the equivalent concentration we have now (so below something like 375 ppm when counting aerosol effects). In that such scenarios would likely lead to sharp cuts in CO2 emissions, they would also presumably lead to sharp reductions in the SO2/SO4 offset, we are really already at about 450 ppm CO2 equivalent for GHGs alone--and so to really get cooling started, the run would likely have to go back to 350 ppm or below--so basically to the level Jim Hansen has been arguing is required to get back near 1990s climatic conditions. I would also note that the CO2 equivalence calculations are being done using the 100-year GWPs. While there is not much difference for N2O and most halocarbons, the 20-year GWP for methane is about 3 times the 100-year value and so over the near-term methane changes (from stringent methane control, or additional release from thawing tundra) could have a very large effect on the short-term forcing and so on temperature change over the next several decades, so when the peak occurs and how one comes back thereafter. While CO2 control may well take time, methane control is very cost effective and should be being pushed very hard as a strategy (along with soot and air pollutants contributing to tropospheric ozone--a point made several years ago by Jim Hansen). In any case, it seems to me it is not implausible to imagine that we could get to conditions where radiative forcing is coming down, and that type of run needs to be explored--so having some sort of standard run that groups could try if they have resources would make good sense. Mike MacCracken On 7/29/08 4:48 PM, "Jason Lowe" wrote: > Hi Peter, > I seem to be the only person not in Snowmass! > > In addition to the Japanese proof of concept the EU Ensembles project > is also running a model intercomparison with a low end scenario that > peaks at a little over 500ppm CO2eq before declining to an eventual > 450ppm. Emissions will be diagnosed and, hopefully, many of > the groups with C-C cycle feedback will also diagnose the feedback! > It will be interesting to see the spread. > > Regards, > > Jason > > On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 11:48 -0600, Jerry Meehl wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> How long will you be in Snowmass? I get there tomorrow late afternoon >> and will be there for the sessions Thursday and Friday. Ron and I were >> planning on re-visiting the experimental design more then, and if you >> could join in that would be great. >> >> Regarding your point in favor of using the RCPs for carbon cycle >> feedback, I think Ron and I arrived at this conclusion independently >> while we both attended a US-Japan workshop in Colorado a few weeks ago. >> The Japanese have performed a proof-of-concept experiment using two >> idealized mitigation scenarios and basically computed numbers for the >> Aspen experiments you originally proposed in 2006. There were two key >> additional points that we noted--one was that they started from a >> pre-industrial control run so they had 20th and 21st century in the >> "climate-carbon feedback" contrasted to "no-climate carbon feedback" >> allowable emissions plots. Second, they had some kind of 20th century >> "observations" of carbon emissions they plotted on their allowable >> emissions graphs to show that their model with carbon-climate feedback >> actually tracked those observations for 20th century. Since there are >> so few observations to compare carbon cycle feedback to, this seemed >> like a fairly compelling reason to use RCPs, which is what you also note >> below. >> >> I think Karl and Ron had lumped the carbon cycle feedback experiments in >> the 1% runs both because this had come up as a possibility in the >> post-Aspen WGCM meeting in Victoria in 2006, and because it could >> possibly present a more pleasing context to evaluate all feedbacks, >> carbon cycle and all others. However, on further review, in addition to >> the points you raised, deriving allowable emissions from RCPs allows a >> check to what the IAMs used for emissions in the first place (and used >> to derive concentrations used in the ESMs). Also, it seems to me that >> carbon cycle feedback falls into a new category of feedback that we in >> the AOGCM world are not used to evaluating. We must depend on the >> advice from you and others in that community. Though it's tempting to >> think that everything can be boiled out of 1% runs, I think those are >> most useful for feedbacks basically "managed" by the atmosphere (like >> clouds, water vapor, etc.). The original Aspen concept for carbon cycle >> feedback always depended on using actual mitigation scenarios, and I >> think we're coming around again to agreeing on that. >> >> Another point is that the cloud feedback community will make a proposal >> to WGCM to enlarge the idealized 1% feedback experiment list, so that >> makes separating out the carbon cycle feedback experiments in a separate >> category using RCPs more compelling. >> >> Hopefully we can discuss this more Thursday. >> >> Jerry >> >> Cox, Peter wrote: >>> Dear Karl and Ron >>> >>> Thanks for this very thorough document. >>> >>> Generally speaking I think we should be focusing much more on realistic >>> policy relevant scenarios rather than 1% per year type experiments. There >>> are two reasons for this: >>> 1) Most now consider a ("business as usual") 1% per year scenario not to >>> represent a viable future. So detailed information on these scenarios is >>> less and less relevant to people outside of the GCM modeling community. >>> 2) More realistic scenarios allow us to utilize observations to validate >>> models/reduce uncertainties in a way that idealized scenarios do not. >>> >>> So I am in favour of diagnosing feedbacks in the more policy-relevant RCP >>> scenarios wherever possible. I say this even though Ron, who is sitting >>> beside me here now in Snowmass, has told me that this makes identifying >>> model differences more difficult. Ron also tells me that this is a fight not >>> worth fighting, but I can't resist commenting anyway..:-) >>> >>> More usefully I would like to respond to your PS. regarding the diagnosis of >>> carbon cycle feedbacks. I strongly believe these should be diagnosed >>> relative to the RCP scenarios. Carbon cycle feedbacks cannot easily be >>> reduced to an equilibrium response plus a timescale. Carbon uptake >>> essentially relies on disequilibrium and is therefore dependent on scenario, >>> so I don't think it is very helpful to define c cycle feedback relative to >>> idealised 1% per year runs. There are also the potential for significant >>> "cold-start" problems with the carbon cycle (as land and ocean uptake are >>> both highly dependent on history). So I vote for diagnosing carbon cycle >>> feedbacks (at least) relative to the RCP scenarios. >>> >>> All the best >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> PLEASE NOTE NEW MOBILE NUMBER >>> Prof Peter Cox, >>> Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics, >>> Room 336, Harrison Building, >>> School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, >>> University of Exeter, >>> Exeter, >>> EX4 4QF, >>> >>> Email: P.M.Cox@exeter.ac.uk, >>> Tel (univ): 01392 269220, >>> Tel (mob) : 07827 412572 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Karl Taylor [mailto:taylor13@llnl.gov] >>> Sent: Tue 22-Jul-08 09:25 AM >>> To: bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr; Curtis Covey; Jerry Meehl; Mitchell, >>> John FB (Chief Scientist); mlatif@ifm-geomar.de; Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov; >>> Andreas Hense; Asgeir Sorteberg; Erich Roeckner; Evgeny Volodin; Gary L. >>> Russell; Gavin Schmidt; GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov; Greg Flato; Helge >>> Drange; Jason Lowe; Jean-Francois Royer; Jean-Louis Dufresne; Jozef Syktus; >>> Julia Slingo; Kimoto Masahide; Peter Gent; Qingquan Li; Seita Emori; >>> Seung-Ki Min; Shan Sun; Shoji Kusunoki; Shuting Yang; Silvio Gualdi; >>> Stephanie Legutke; Tongwen Wu; Tony Hirst; Toru Nozawa; Wilhelm May; Won-Tae >>> Kwon; Ying Xu; Yong Luo; Yongqiang Yu; Kamal Puri; Tim Stockdale; Gabi >>> Hegerl; James Murphy; Marco Giorgetta; George Boer; Myles Allen; claudia >>> tebaldi; Ben Santer; Tim Barnett; Nathan Gillett; Phil Jones; David Karoly; >>> Dáithí Stone; Stott, Peter; Francis Zwiers; Toru Nozawa; Ken Sperber; Dave >>> Bader; Mike MacCracken; boyle5@llnl.gov; Stephen Klein; A. Pier Siebesma; >>> William Rossow; Chris Bretherton; >> George Tselioudis; Mark Webb; Sandrine Bony; James Hack; Martin Miller; Ken >> Kunkel; Christian Jakob; Kathy Hibbard; Eyring, Veronika; >> pasb@lsce.saclay.cea.fr; giorgi@ictp.trieste.it; c.lequere@uea.ac.uk; >> naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at; stephen.griffies@noaa.gov; Cox, Peter; Pierre >> Friedlingstein; Olivier Boucher; Bala Govindasamy; Jonathan Gregory; Chris >> Jones; Jones, Gareth S; David Lobell; peter gleckler; Cath Senior; Keith >> Williams; stephen e. schwartz; David Easterling; Inez Fung; Duane Waliser; >> William Collins; Ken Caldeira; Dave Randall; Joyce Penner; Anna Pirani; Bjorn >> Stevens >>> Cc: Ronald Stouffer >>> Subject: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As most of you know, plans are well underway for a coordinated set of >>> climate model experiments, which will constitute the Fifth phase of >>> CMIP. Attached is a description of the proposed experiments. As >>> members of the CMIP panel, which was established by the WCRP's Working >>> Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) to help coordinate this activity, we >>> are seeking your comments. Considerable thought and input from a wide >>> community of scientists have already contributed to the CMIP5 design, >>> and therefore major changes are not envisioned. Competing interests and >>> various tradeoffs have been carefully considered before coming up with >>> the proposed suite of experiments. Please keep in mind that modeling >>> groups have limited resources and the experiment must represent a >>> compromise among various priorities. We will not be able to please everyone. >>> >>> The CMIP panel must present a final design plan for CMIP5 to the WGCM at >>> its annual meeting in September, just two months from now. Given this >>> tight deadline (which cannot slip if the CMIP5 results are to be >>> available in time for the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report). For this >>> reason, we ask that you send us (taylor13@llnl.gov and >>> Ronald.Stouffer@noaa.gov) any comments and suggestions you have by >>> September 1, 2008. >>> >>> Feel free to pass this document on to anyone you think will have an >>> interest in it. We invite comments from scientists associated with all >>> aspects of the climate change issue, spanning the three IPCC working groups. >>> >>> With best regards, >>> Karl Taylor (PCMDI) and Ron Stouffer (Chair, CMIP panel). >>> >>> P.S. Please note that there are remaining details yet to be worked out. >>> In particular it has been suggested that experiments 4.2 a&b described >>> in the document should be performed in conjunction with the so-called >>> RCP-driven experiments given in Table 2 rather than with the idealized >>> (1% CO2 increase per year) experiments of Table 4. Experiments 4.2 >>> allow us to separate out the climate-carbon cycle feedback. The original >>> proposal was in fact to do this separation for the RCP runs, but several >>> scientists offered compelling arguments for switching this diagnostic >>> analysis to the 1% runs. Some of the reasons for making this change >>> from the original proposal can be found in section 9. Still, there are >>> some scientists who continue to express a preference for the original >>> design. Please let us know what you think about this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 911. 2008-08-03 09:05:15 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun Aug 3 09:05:15 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Invitation to Review RSPA-2008-0296 for Proceedings A to: proceedingsa@royalsociety.org Louise, Unable to do this - just returned from holiday, and the family are coming for the next 2 weeks. Alternates would be Gabi Hegerl or Tom Crowley at Edinburgh. Gabi Hegerl Tom Crowley is also at Edinburgh, but I can't find his email. Cheers Phil At 14:57 29/07/2008, you wrote: 29-Jul-2008 Dear Professor Jones, MANUSCRIPT ID: RSPA-2008-0296 TITLE: Analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature rise: a reply to Lockwood. AUTHOR(S): Scafetta, Nicola I am writing to ask if you would consider refereeing the above manuscript for Proceedings A; a comment on a collection of previous published papers by Lockwood et al? I have included the paper's abstract below. As we endeavour to keep time from submission to publication as short as possible, we usually ask referees to report back within 3 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Please let me know if you would be interested in commenting on this manuscript. If you would like to review this manuscript but require more time, please contact the editorial office for an extension. If you are unable to review at this time, I would be grateful if you could possibly suggest a few people who you feel would be able to comment on this. Please click the appropriate link at the bottom of the page to automatically register your reply with our online manuscript submission and review system. Thank you for your assistance and I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards, Louise Gardner, Editorial Coordinator proceedingsa@royalsociety.org To respond automatically, click below: Agreed: [1]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prsa?URL_MASK=kx2HdrRnTDQrkNscCBYZ Declined: [2]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prsa?URL_MASK=PHnHbDdCcYsXRbBMMs22 Unavailable: [3]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prsa?URL_MASK=4Q6G2k3HrQMtGTTfQXM5 Out of area: [4]http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/prsa?URL_MASK=nhtfJnkTnNHd23Kr3wDD ABSTRACT: Herein I critique three recent works [Lockwood and Fr\"ohlich, 2007 and 2008a; Lockwood 2008b] that claim that the sun has given a negligible contribution to the global warming observed during the last three decades regardless of which satellite total solar irradiance record is adopted. I show that the above studies present several and serious scientific flaws which make them incompatible with a large established scientific literature. I show that when Lockwood's model [2008b] is corrected to quantitatively accommodate the already established scientific findings, it is found that the sun has likely and significantly contributed to the observed global warming. The solar percentage to the global warming since 1980 ranges from a slight negative value to a value that can be as large as 60\%. This wide range is related to the uncertainty of the total solar irradiance satellite composites. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3509. 2008-08-03 11:15:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun Aug 3 11:15:11 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Visit? to: "Palutikof, Jean" Jean, Just back from 7 days in Sardinia - where it was hot and sunny. I'll check out others on Monday, but I can't make Aug 15/16. We're going to a wedding on the 15th and won't be back till the evening on the 16th. I could do Aug 17 and 18. I'm hear all the week of the 18th. Sue is retiring and we're trying to arrange a do for her as well. Will you be around on the 4th or 5th (am). Family arrive on the 5th (pm) and I'll then be at home till about 11th. I'll see what people will be here. I see another FOI request from Holland - seems to be using the EIR this time. I was in Reading on the 25th re UKCIP08 and alerted them up to all this. Tried to see Brian but he wasn't around. At least the FOI people at MOHC, UEA and Reading have got together and if CA are to be believed there are two other UK Universities getting these requests. CA claim they have Keith cornered - with a request for the data in a paper in the Proc Roy Soc. Julia will be good as a Chief Scientist. Only met a few times, but she's straightforward, or so it seems to me. Some other news is that Andrew Watkinson is become the First Director of LWEC. Not sure what this means for Tyndall or ENV. Last time I saw Andrew he was asking if he should go to the Sept meeting of IPCC. I assume you have a date for going to Australia? Cheers Phil At 09:13 01/08/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil We'll be close (well relatively) to Norwich the weekend of 16/17 August. Any chance we could meet with a few CRU people to go for a meal. I know Sue is interested also, since she plans to leave UEA shortly. I realize it's a bad time being August, but it's all we've got. It could be either the previous week, Friday 15th, or the next week Monday 18th. We could possibly squeeze something in later that week beginning the 18th if that was the only opportunity. It would be good to meet, but will understand if the people density is too low. The FOI stuff drags on at this end, as I'm told it does with you also. I understand Brian Hoskins has said he doesn't want to be put forward for WGI Co-Chair, in part because of the hassle factor. What do you think to our new Chief Scientist? All the best 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 Email: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2631. 2008-08-04 09:07:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 4 09:07:04 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: last news + PDF to: Edouard Bard Edouard, Thanks for the reprint - awful as it is. Enjoy the time in Noumea and try and forget about it. I also hope that the paper supposedly submitted to J. Climate gets a better review than this - I'm sure it will! I can't see how they get the results they do for minimum temperature. DTR has reduced a little, but the long-term trends would be similar to mean temperature. It is amazing that they can't understand that the trends should be similar to SSTs on long timescales. Cheers Phil At 02:16 30/07/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, Le Mouël & Courtillot just published a paper described their results in the proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences (attached PDF in which you get criticized on page 3). This is basically what Le Mouël described in his lecture available in video. Not much details about the stats, because they refer to another paper submitted to Journal of Climate. The first paper didn't get seriously reviewed as it was edited by Claude Jaupart, former director of IPGP and close friend of Courtillot & Le Mouël. I hope that the paper submitted to Journal of Climate will be reviewed by serious and competent referees (no more but no less than it deserves). Best wishes, Edouard P.S.: I send this message from Noumea in French Caledonia where I collaborate with coral reef and oceanography experts. I will also give a few lectures and organize a one-day workshop on sea level changes. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4252. 2008-08-04 11:51:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 4 11:51:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Visit? to: "Palutikof, Jean" Jean, Clare is away Aug 13-29. Keith is away that weekend, but only in Aldeburgh, so he might be able to come back. Mike can do Aug 18 and I can. I can also contact Sue. Not many other people here at the moment. Cheers Phil Jean, Just back from 7 days in Sardinia - where it was hot and sunny. I'll check out others on Monday, but I can't make Aug 15/16. We're going to a wedding on the 15th and won't be back till the evening on the 16th. I could do Aug 17 and 18. I'm hear all the week of the 18th. Sue is retiring and we're trying to arrange a do for her as well. Will you be around on the 4th or 5th (am). Family arrive on the 5th (pm) and I'll then be at home till about 11th. I'll see what people will be here. I see another FOI request from Holland - seems to be using the EIR this time. I was in Reading on the 25th re UKCIP08 and alerted them up to all this. Tried to see Brian but he wasn't around. At least the FOI people at MOHC, UEA and Reading have got together and if CA are to be believed there are two other UK Universities getting these requests. CA claim they have Keith cornered - with a request for the data in a paper in the Proc Roy Soc. Julia will be good as a Chief Scientist. Only met a few times, but she's straightforward, or so it seems to me. Some other news is that Andrew Watkinson is become the First Director of LWEC. Not sure what this means for Tyndall or ENV. Last time I saw Andrew he was asking if he should go to the Sept meeting of IPCC. I assume you have a date for going to Australia? Cheers Phil At 09:13 01/08/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil We'll be close (well relatively) to Norwich the weekend of 16/17 August. Any chance we could meet with a few CRU people to go for a meal. I know Sue is interested also, since she plans to leave UEA shortly. I realize it's a bad time being August, but it's all we've got. It could be either the previous week, Friday 15th, or the next week Monday 18th. We could possibly squeeze something in later that week beginning the 18th if that was the only opportunity. It would be good to meet, but will understand if the people density is too low. The FOI stuff drags on at this end, as I'm told it does with you also. I understand Brian Hoskins has said he doesn't want to be put forward for WGI Co-Chair, in part because of the hassle factor. What do you think to our new Chief Scientist? All the best 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 Email: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1346. 2008-08-05 13:02:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:02:27 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: An awful paper!!! to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk No, I mean the USP, e.g., [1]http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/ncdc-changes-from-national-record-keeper -to-advocacy-group/ Identity theft - if you can't trust bloggers, who can you trust? Do you think it was malicious (someone posing as you) or just another Phil Jones whom someone helped along by giving his comment your picture? Tom [2]P.Jones@uea.ac.uk said the following on 8/5/2008 12:43 PM: Hi Tom, Do you mean the CCSP Report? Copies just arrived in CRU today - so thanks. I had my identity nicked last night. A Philip Jones wrote something to the Danish Govt. Someone in Italy saw it - found me on Google, so attached my picture to it and the CRU logo. Had to involve UEA as a threat to remove it !! Cheers Phil Thanks for keeping me in the loop, Phil. Our Unified Synthesis Product is now getting hit pretty hard. I just keep telling myself that when they attack one personally, it means they don't have any science to attack on. The latest is that one of our photos added just to illustrate the points had been photoshopped by the person we bought it from. Horrors! Regards, Tom P. Phil Jones said the following on 8/4/2008 4:20 AM: -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 2799. 2008-08-05 20:29:54 ______________________________________________________ cc: , , "Hluchy, Michele M" , , "Grigg, Justin L" date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 20:29:54 -0400 from: "Wahl, Eugene R" subject: New contact information at NOAA Paleo Group to: , , , , "Stephen T. Jackson" , Tania Schoennagel , Jack Williams , Bryan Shuman , Kevin Anchukaitis , "Webb III, Thompson" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Hello everyone: Please find below my new contact information at the NOAA/National Climate Data Center/Paleoclimate Branch. I started here officially yesterday. [Tom, sorry for the delay in responding to your question last month, but here is the answer! I have been selected to join the NOAA Paleo group, and thus have migrated here to CO from NY. I look forward to the new challenges and opportunities of being here.] Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch 325 Broadway Street Boulder, CO 80305 303-497-6297 Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html 5068. 2008-08-06 16:58:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:58:32 +0100 (BST) from: David Lister subject: Draft report (fwd) to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:23:08 +0200 From: "Buishand, Adri (KNMI)" To: "David Lister, env (School of Environmental Sciences) " Subject: Draft report Dear David, I read the draft report on your work for WP5.4 last weekend. I also consulted two of my colleagues about a number of points this week. The meaning of the values for the decadal trends in Figs. 3 - 7 is not entirely clear to me. Do these values refer to the slope of a linear regression fit? Does the brown colour in e.g. the upper right panel of Fig. 5 indicate that there is an upward trend of 1 to 1.5 degrees per decade (or 4.5 to 6.7 degrees over the 45 year period) in parts of northern and eastern Europe during spring? I think it may be good to say something about the statistical significance of the trends. Further, some references could be given to other results on trends in extremes. I wonder what is already known and what is new. A striking point in Fig. 5 is the negative trend over Turkey. One of our Greek partners in ENSEMBLES mailed me once a Climate Research publication (Vol. 30, 161-174, 2006) in which negative trends in Tn_10 were found over parts of Greece. My colleague Albert Klein Tank compared your results with his trends in the number of days > Tx_90 and number of days < Tn_10 in the ECA data set. Looks good. The only difference is that the large positive trends in Tn_05 over Finland, the Baltic states, Russia and the Ukraine in spring (rose , red and brown colours in the upper right panel of Fig. 5) are not found in the number of days < Tn_10 (most station trends are not significant in thist area). These relatively large values do also not show up in your Fig. 6 for the trends in Tn in the CRUTS dataset. Figures 8 - 11 show considerable differences between the trends in the WP5.1 gridded observed dataset and those in the ERA40 driven output. I wonder how far these difference could be explained. I showed Fig. 8 to Erik van Meijgaard who is involved in the RACMO2 simulations. The trend differences are sometimes more than 1 degree per decade (in parts of northern Europe in spring, and in southern Norway and small parts of central Europe in autumn). Does this imply that there is no trend, or even a decreasing trend, in the RACMO2 simulation? Is there a bias in Tn_-05 that changes over time? This may occur in spring in northern Scandinavia if the model is unable to reproduce snow melt. Another point is that RACMO2 has difficulties with low temperatures in stable boundary layers. This likely leads to a positive bias in Tn_05 (RACMO2 warmer than observed), especially during winter. But it is unclear how this should lead to a trend in Tn-_05. Furthermore, unlike the other regional climate models, RACMO2 has the same physics as ERA40 reanalysis and biases in the RACMO2 simulation may therefore also show up in the ERA40 reanalysis. Because the ERA40 reanalysis may suffer from the same shortcomings as the RACMO2 simulation, it might be interesting to see whether the trends in Tn-05 in the ERA40 reanalysis differ from those in the WP5.1 gridded observations. But please keep in mind the difference between the trends in Tn-05 and those in other Tn indices noted above for Finland, the Baltic states, Russia and the Ukraine in spring. Concluding, it might be useful to think a bit about the causes of trend differences. Maybe we can have some discussion on it at an ENSEMBLES meeting. Are you going to attend the Santander General Assembly? Kind regards, Adri 1433. 2008-08-11 16:47:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:47:55 +0200 from: Richard Somerville subject: Invitation to: Helge Drange , Michael Prather , , , , Piers Forster , peter.lemke@awi.de, Nathan Bindoff , jto@u.arizona.edu, Phil Jones , richard.wood@metoffice.gov.uk, stocker@climate.unibe.ch Dear Colleagues, I have been asked to organize a session on climate change at a rather unusual meeting to take place in Venice, Italy, December 17 - 19, 2008. This email is an invitation to you to attend. The meeting is described at http://www.itrevolutions.org/ and if you scroll down, you will see a theme on climate change. I have also pasted below some descriptive material that was sent to me. The event is held under the auspices of an information technology and computer science organization described at http://www.icst.org and having strong links to the business community. It is thus not one that has had much previous contact with the climate science research community. The location is attractive, and the meeting offers the promise of interacting with a wide range of stimulating people. Unfortunately, the organizers cannot offer financial support. There is also a conflict with the AGU meeting in San Francisco. Can you please send me a quick preliminary indication of your potential interest in participating? Your response will not commit you to anything, but it will help me give the organizers some feeling for how the community reacts to the proposed climate change theme. Thank you in advance. I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Richard C. J. Somerville Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California, San Diego, USA http://richardsomerville.com ****************************************************************************** In December 2008 (17-19, Venice, Italy) IT Revolutions (http://www.itrevolutions.org/) will bring together funding agencies and government representatives from around the world - with corporations and visionary academic contributors - to set future directions in ensuring a smooth transition while enabling IT to unleash its full power in serving the world. The Forum is structured around the Themes - and we will have position papers for each Theme. IT Revolutions is envisioned as an opportunity to raise awareness to the major challenges facing the IT community. We want to have plenary sessions with the Keynotes from each Theme - then we will split into parallel sessions - workshop style - for each Theme. In addition - each Theme will have its own panel with the funding reps and companies to discuss the way forward - and we will have a joint panel with the funding agencies for all Themes - to see how they all converge / diverge. Each Theme Chair is one of the most prominent / emerging leaders in their areas and will deliver one of the Keynotes for their Themes (as Chairs they may select other position papers to become Keynotes to be presented in the IT Revlutions planery forum.) For all Themes we are seeking: 1. Position papers debating the paradox as it relates to the respective Theme. 2. Panels with industry and academia including funding agency rep. and government reps. These shall be international. 3. 'Inter-Theme' panel discussions crafting future directions that will conclude the IT Revolutions meeting. These directions will be published by the ICST as a reference for where we are and where we shall invest our efforts. ****************************************************************************** 3788. 2008-08-14 13:56:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:56:08 +0100 from: H J Fowler subject: RE: FYI: Top climate-impacts programme shut to: Phil Jones , C G Kilsby Yeah. I noticed this. That is a real shame as Mickey is such a character. I thought that things might get stirred up a bit when Linda stepped down (I think ISSE have all but been disbanded with their move over to Mesa and lack of director). They really don't have any funding left over at NCAR at the moment - they couldn't even afford to bring Claudia Tebaldi back when she left. Rob's (Wilby) over there at the moment - think he is back next week - but things were not good when I was there over Xmas. No money and too much politics. H ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 14 August 2008 13:51 To: C G Kilsby; H J Fowler Subject: Fwd: FYI: Top climate-impacts programme shut Chris,Hayley, FYI. This is likely to by in the NYT as well. Seems as though the new broom Eric Baron is stirring things up there. All doesn't seem happy in the state of NCAR. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 207509, limit: 153600) X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.032 tagged_above=-10 required=15 tests=[AWL=-0.970, BAYES_50=0.001, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:44:04 -0500 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Top climate-impacts programme shut X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1 [1]http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/454808a.html Published online 12 August 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/454808a News Top climate-impacts programme shut National Center for Atmospheric Research axes developing-world initiative. Jeff Tollefson [] The National Center for Atmospheric Research. The lay-off last week of a senior political scientist involved in helping poor countries prepare for climate change has exposed a stark division in opinions on the core purpose of a key US climate-research institution. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, says its hand was forced by several years of largely stagnant budgets. These have resulted in the loss of 12% of its core workforce during the past five years - ironically, during a period in which climate change moved to centre stage in Washington DC. But the lay-off of Mickey Glantz, a high-profile researcher who has chalked up some 34 years at the institution, has raised questions about whether NCAR is turning its back on the social sciences at a time when international efforts are focusing on mitigation and adaptation. Certainly Glantz believes this is the case, saying budgets are just an excuse and that the leadership is defensively "circling the wagons". His dismissal is tied to NCAR's announcement last week that it is shutting its Center for Capacity Building, the highly respected outreach programme that Glantz has run since 2005. But others associated with the programme say they believe the NCAR leadership still backs them despite its budgetary problems. "I don't think this has anything to do with shutting down social science at NCAR," says Linda Mearns, who recently stepped down as director of the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment there. Mearns says social scientists within the institute will continue to work with physical scientists at NCAR on integrated research projects. "And that's the proper role for an institute in social science at NCAR." [] Mickey Glantz's social science department has been axed. IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletin On the other side, some scientists are questioning whether the institution has done enough to maintain, let alone build, its expertise in the physical sciences, particularly in climate modelling. These questions have been driven home by the departure of key scientists, including William Collins, who helped oversee NCAR's climate modelling programme. "I can tell you in the science divisions here, it's the worst mood people have seen in a long time, and one reflection is people walking away," says Caspar Ammann, a palaeoclimatologist at the institution. NCAR's new director, Eric Barron, who took over in July, says the institution is in an "interesting position", caught between a dismal budgetary outlook and ongoing concerns about where NCAR should direct its limited resources. "A number of people are saying that our climate modelling programme has taken too big of a hit. People are saying very loudly that NCAR is not setting its priorities the way it should," he says. "The simple fact of the matter is that years of tight budgets are coming home to roost." Barron says he supports the social science mission but was able to preserve several positions throughout the institution "that are of critical importance" by eliminating a single programme that he says cost upwards of $730,000 annually. NCAR's base budget - almost $88.5 million in the fiscal year 2008 - comes from the US National Science Foundation, although the institution receives significant funding from other federal agencies as well. In the fiscal year 2007, its overall budget came to $149.3 million. Although current appropriations bills in Congress would increase NCAR's budget, few expect this legislation to pass in an election year. Congress is likely to wind up passing a "continuing resolution" later this autumn that would effectively freeze current spending levels until at least early next year. Roger Pielke Jr, a climate policy expert at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says it's not clear why Glantz was singled out or, more broadly, how NCAR is addressing its fiscal situation. "There's really no transparency in how these decisions are made," he says. Glantz, who has been guaranteed one year's salary, says he plans to stay on for a while, although such courtesies will not be extended to his staff, including an administrative position and two researchers. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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: 159f29f1.png: 00000001,74400341,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: 159f2ae1.png: 00000001,7440034f,00000000,00000000 3776. 2008-08-14 14:26:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dáithí Stone , Peter Stott , Toru Nozawa , Alexey Karpechko , Michael Wehner date: Thu Aug 14 14:26:16 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: Decision on Nature Geoscience manuscript NGS-2008-07-00710 to: Gabi Hegerl , Nathan Gillett Nathan, I'd pursue this. If you can get it into Nature then all the better, although the resubmission to Nature would have to be well argued in the accompanying letter as well as in the text. The spatial issue is important in the Antarctic and the region was the one missing from AR4. Cheers Phil At 13:17 14/08/2008, Gabi Hegerl wrote: Hi Nathan, sounds like you got the foot quite well into the door if we can address reviewer 1. I agree that the discounting of area results by lack of significance in individual stations is frustrating. Maybe though if one can give a bit more space to an explanation of why Antarctica does what it does would help (eg the SAM subtracted map)? Did the Monahan paper use the same kinds of models (with ozone forcing)? Gabi Nathan Gillett wrote: Hi all, We now have the reviews back on the polar temperature paper. Unfortunately it's rejected with a suggestion that we resubmit. One reviewer (reviewer 2) was very positive, and had few suggested changes. The other reviewer was unconvinced of the Antarctic analysis - his primary objection seemed to be that we shouldn't be able to detect anthro influence on Antarctic temperature if station temperature trends are not locally significant. However, he appeared not to consider that a large scale mean, or pattern of temperature trends may be significant even if individual station trends are not. Addressing these comments by calculating the significance of area mean temperature trends etc should be relatively straightforward - we've got to try to convince the non-specialist that the Antarctic trends are significant independently of the D&A analysis. I think it's worth revising and resubmitting to Nature Geoscience. Let me know what you think and suggestions for revising the paper. Cheers, Nathan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 2008/8/13 Subject: Decision on Nature Geoscience manuscript NGS-2008-07-00710 To: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk 13th Aug 2008 *Please ensure you delete the link to your author homepage in this e-mail if you wish to forward it to your co-authors. Dear Dr Gillett Your manuscript entitled "Attribution of polar warming to human influence" has now been seen by 2 referees, whose comments are attached. Although they find your work of some potential interest, referee 1 has raised concerns which in our view are sufficiently important to preclude publication of the work in Nature Geoscience, at least in its present form. If, after future work, you can provide compelling evidence for the statistical significance of your reported Antarctic temperature trends as well as for your attribution of those trends to natural and anthropogenic forcing, we will be pleased to consider a revised manuscript (unless, of course, something similar has by then been accepted at Nature Geoscience or appeared elsewhere). I should stress, however, that we would be reluctant to trouble our referees again unless we thought their comments had been addressed in full, and we would understand if you preferred instead to submit your manuscript elsewhere. In the meantime we hope that you find our referees' comments helpful. Yours sincerely, Alicia Newton Associate Editor Nature Geoscience Nature Publishing Group The Macmillan Building 4 Crinan Street London N1 9XW UK PS Please use the link below to submit a revised paper: [1]http://mts-ngs.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A1Q3CGj2A3FlJ1J7A93rUshYh3SdI0gPrnGWsf 3wZ *This url links to your confidential homepage and associated information about manuscripts you may have submitted or be reviewing for us. If you wish to forward this e-mail to co-authors, please delete this link to your homepage first. +44 20 7833 4000 Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Summary: This paper attempts to formally attribute polar warming in both hemispheres to anthropogenic forcing. The approach of comparing GCM simulations forced by both natural (NAT) and natural + anthropogenic (ANT) has been used successfully in other attribution studies, but here the authors apply it to the polar regions where very little data is available. To isolate the difference between NAT and ANT, they employ an innovative detection and attribution technique. With regards to the Arctic, the model ANT trends appear to be reasonable compared to observations (Fig. 2). Due to the strong warming in the Arctic it would be hard to quarrel with the results for that region. With regards to the Antarctic, where there is less data and less warming than in the Arctic, the results are unconvincing. The authors fail to comment on a closely-related recent paper that has first-order consequences for their analysis (Monaghan et al. 2008b: 20th century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Geophys. Res. Letts., 35, L07502, doi:10.1029/2007GL032630). That paper strongly suggests that the GCMs are too sensitive to anthropogenic forcing (more details below), and a key assumption of this study is that the GCMs are able to reasonably simulate anthropogenic influences on surface temperature. With this assumption in question, which is confounded by large uncertainty in the observed trends from the handful of available stations, and the fact that Antarctic warming is only likely to be statistically significant over a very small fraction of its surface area (<10%), the result that Antarctic warming is due to human influence is highly questionable. Detailed comments on the Antarctic analysis are given below. Without a convincing Antarctic analysis, I don't feel that this paper is suitable for publication in Nature Geoscience. Given the complexity of the topic, the authors might consider revising and submitting this important work to a high-profile journal that has room for a much more detailed analysis to be presented (Journal of Climate comes to mind). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Detailed Comments on the Antarctic analysis: The authors seem to ignore the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming over 90% of Antarctica. For example, Figure 3 is misleading, since it does not show statistical significance. According to the statistics on Gareth Marshall's Antarctic temperature website ([2]http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/), and confirmed in Turner et al. (2005), the long-term annual positive temperature trend in the Ross Sea at Scott Base is statistically insignificant [1958-2007 trend = +0.0172 {plus minus} 0.0230], as is the long-term annual positive temperature trend at Casey near 110 E [1958-2007 trend =+0.0118 {plus minus} 0.0212]. Therefore, only over the Antarctic Peninsula (<5% of Antarctic surface area) and at a single station on continental Antarctica (Novolazarevskaya), has long-term statistically significant warming been recorded. The spatial influence of Novolazarevskaya appears to be very limited, as the stations on either side of it have statistically insignificant temperature trends near zero. So, the stations with statistically significant warming likely represent a very small area of Antarctica (<10%), and additionally they are sandwiched within a sector that only spans 80 degrees of latitude, from -68 W to 12 E. The authors try to rectify this localized warming by noting that "positive trends predominate" over most of Antarctica according to the surface temperature synthesis of Monaghan et al. (2008). However, Monaghan et al. (2008) noted that the positive and negative trends over Antarctica were overwhelmingly statistically insignificant apart from the Peninsula and a small region around Novalazarevskaya. Chapman and Walsh (2007) also performed a gridded Antarctic surface temperature reconstruction like Monaghan (over a longer period) and got similar results. The point is, how can the authors attribute Antarctic surface warming to anthropogenic forcing, when there is so little evidence for warming to begin with? Why didn't the authors use the more spatially-comprehensive data of Chapman and Walsh (2007) or Monaghan et al. (2008) for their analysis, even if just for comparison with their station-based results? Considering the distribution of the Antarctic stations and their comparatively short records with high interannual variability, perhaps the only place on the continent where one could argue for a robust anthropogenic surface warming signal is over the Peninsula. Marshall et al. (2006) made a convincing case that summer warming on the east side of the Peninsula is due to increased foehn wind events resulting from a stronger SAM. In turn, the link between the SAM and anthropogenic influences, especially from stratospheric ozone depletion, has been established in previous modeling studies, some of which the author cites here. Therefore, if one infers from the existing literature that the small region of Antarctica that has warmed statistically significantly during the past 1/2 century has been mainly influenced by the SAM, then the results shown in this paper for Antarctica (attributing surface warming to human influence) are not particularly groundbreaking. One key assumption of this study is that the AR4 models are able to accurately simulate the impact of anthropogenic forcing on Antarctic surface temperatures. However, in a very closely related study that was not cited in this analysis (Monaghan et al. 2008b), the authors found that 5 AR4 models, two that were included in this study, had annual surface temperature trends that were substantially larger than observed during the past ~1/2 century. The statistically insignificant observed 1960-99 trend from Monaghan et al. (2008b) was 0.06 +/- 2.03 K, versus a highly significant GCM ensemble trend of 1.44 K +/- 0.34 K; all 5 GCM members had statistically significant positive trends (p<0.05). The authors, who also compared their results to the 100+ year Antarctic temperature record (1900-1999) of Schneider et al. (2006, GRL), found that the models results were much larger than observed over the past century as well. They examined why the GCM trends were so much more positive than observed and found (as the authors note in this paper) that the surface temperature sensitivity to the SAM is weaker than observed. More importantly, they concluded that in the GCMs, the influence of the SAM on surface temperatures appears to be overwhelmed by a spurious water vapor feedback. In turn, the water vapor feedback may be (wrongly) causing the much larger than observed GCM surface temperature trends over Antarctica. Their results indicate that the IPCC AR4 GCMs may not yet be able to fully simulate all of the impacts of anthropogenic forcing in Antarctica. If correct, their results signify that the key assumption of this study is not robust for Antarctica. Additionally, their study suggests that the Antarctic surface temperature datasets that are representative of surface temperature over the entire continent may yield a very different comparison with GCM results than is concluded from the comparison with the limited dataset used here. Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): Overall this is an excellent manuscript and an important contribution to the detection and attribution debate. Detection and attribution studies require both models and observations, and this is often accomplished by comparing observations of actual changes to model-induced trends for models forced independently by natural, anthropogenic and combined forcings. This was first done, I think (Stott as an author will know for sure), by Stott, P., Tett, S., Jones, G., Allen, M., Mitchell, J. & Jenkins, G. (2000) Science 290, 2133-2137. Stott, P. (2003) Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1728. using four ensembles of a single model, and very strong evidence for global-scale detection and attribution was offered and was a key element in IPCC TAR--the authors of this submission might make this history a bit more prominent in a minor revision. Another study with more limited data coverage arguing that some regional skill was still evident in the same set of model runs was offered using observations of spring phenology of plants and animals as a proxy for spring temperature, and again a clear detection and "joint attribution" to anthropogenic causation--though a smaller fraction of variance explained--was also found in: Root, Terry L., Dena MacMynowski, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Stephen H. Schneider, 2005: "Human-modified temperatures induce species changes: Joint attribution, " Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 21, 7465-7469 The latter used more sparse observational data and thus finding less variance explained than for global scale thermometer data in Stott et al papers was not surprising. BUt it did find skill at regional scales. In this submitted paper studying polar regions the authors aggregate four models, rather than one, and like earlier studies compare this for models driven by N and N&A forcings. Data in the polar regions is very sparse--more so than even the phenological ecological data sets--nevertheless the authors are admirably able to perform a heroic--and to me credible--effort to extract a signal of human-induced climate changes in this limited data set. My only suggestion to the authors is to consider framing their efforts in the context of earlier ones like mentioned above issues such as data coverage and show the evolution of D&A studies using N and N&A forced models and how all such studies at global to regional scales do agree that joint attribution is indeed a credible conclusion--and this latest study extends that to polar regions. In short, the authors should be congratulated on a fine addition to the literature. This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS -- 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 695. 2008-08-14 17:01:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Aug 14 17:01:17 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: FYI: Top climate-impacts programme shut to: "Palutikof, Jean" All doesn't seem happy in the state of NCAR! Maybe you know more from Linda. I've heard that Andy Revkin might be following this up with an article in the NYT. Eric Barron spent years at Penn State, then he went for 2 years to Texas A&M for an enormous salary (his own words were an offer I couldn't refuse). Now he's at NCAR - maybe his salary has affected their deficit. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 207509, limit: 153600) X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.032 tagged_above=-10 required=15 tests=[AWL=-0.970, BAYES_50=0.001, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:44:04 -0500 To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Top climate-impacts programme shut X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1 [1]http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/full/454808a.html Published online 12 August 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/454808a News Top climate-impacts programme shut National Center for Atmospheric Research axes developing-world initiative. Jeff Tollefson [] The National Center for Atmospheric Research. The lay-off last week of a senior political scientist involved in helping poor countries prepare for climate change has exposed a stark division in opinions on the core purpose of a key US climate-research institution. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, says its hand was forced by several years of largely stagnant budgets. These have resulted in the loss of 12% of its core workforce during the past five years - ironically, during a period in which climate change moved to centre stage in Washington DC. But the lay-off of Mickey Glantz, a high-profile researcher who has chalked up some 34 years at the institution, has raised questions about whether NCAR is turning its back on the social sciences at a time when international efforts are focusing on mitigation and adaptation. Certainly Glantz believes this is the case, saying budgets are just an excuse and that the leadership is defensively "circling the wagons". His dismissal is tied to NCAR's announcement last week that it is shutting its Center for Capacity Building, the highly respected outreach programme that Glantz has run since 2005. But others associated with the programme say they believe the NCAR leadership still backs them despite its budgetary problems. "I don't think this has anything to do with shutting down social science at NCAR," says Linda Mearns, who recently stepped down as director of the Institute for the Study of Society and Environment there. Mearns says social scientists within the institute will continue to work with physical scientists at NCAR on integrated research projects. "And that's the proper role for an institute in social science at NCAR." [] Mickey Glantz's social science department has been axed. IISD/Earth Negotiations Bulletin On the other side, some scientists are questioning whether the institution has done enough to maintain, let alone build, its expertise in the physical sciences, particularly in climate modelling. These questions have been driven home by the departure of key scientists, including William Collins, who helped oversee NCAR's climate modelling programme. "I can tell you in the science divisions here, it's the worst mood people have seen in a long time, and one reflection is people walking away," says Caspar Ammann, a palaeoclimatologist at the institution. NCAR's new director, Eric Barron, who took over in July, says the institution is in an "interesting position", caught between a dismal budgetary outlook and ongoing concerns about where NCAR should direct its limited resources. "A number of people are saying that our climate modelling programme has taken too big of a hit. People are saying very loudly that NCAR is not setting its priorities the way it should," he says. "The simple fact of the matter is that years of tight budgets are coming home to roost." Barron says he supports the social science mission but was able to preserve several positions throughout the institution "that are of critical importance" by eliminating a single programme that he says cost upwards of $730,000 annually. NCAR's base budget - almost $88.5 million in the fiscal year 2008 - comes from the US National Science Foundation, although the institution receives significant funding from other federal agencies as well. In the fiscal year 2007, its overall budget came to $149.3 million. Although current appropriations bills in Congress would increase NCAR's budget, few expect this legislation to pass in an election year. Congress is likely to wind up passing a "continuing resolution" later this autumn that would effectively freeze current spending levels until at least early next year. Roger Pielke Jr, a climate policy expert at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says it's not clear why Glantz was singled out or, more broadly, how NCAR is addressing its fiscal situation. "There's really no transparency in how these decisions are made," he says. Glantz, who has been guaranteed one year's salary, says he plans to stay on for a while, although such courtesies will not be extended to his staff, including an administrative position and two researchers. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4353. 2008-08-18 12:39:50 ______________________________________________________ date: 18 Aug 2008 12:39:50 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Phil Jones a couple of quick points - more later. - why does the CET line on figure A1 only go to 1950? Surely you have enough data to go to 1982 with no padding? I think that it is important to graphically show that even if you take IPCC90 at face value, it still shows that today is warmer. The graph will be looked at much more often than the text will be read. - I was talking to Ben Cook recently, and he was describing some tree species in Vietnam and Thailand that clearly had annual rings and that they were in the process of cross-validating the dating. In general, he was pretty optimistic about the prospects for tropical dendro. Thus in the response to reviewers and maybe the text, we should be quite open to this. Gavin On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 06:00, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the > responses to the reviewers. > We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by > the beginning > of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next Monday > is a national > holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look through your > parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or over the > weekend? > Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let me know of > any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I think just look > wrong? > I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 206. 2008-08-18 12:54:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 18 12:54:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision to: "Darch, Geoff J" At 13:35 20/05/2008, you wrote: Phil, Thanks for this. In response: 1. I can't remember the thinking behind this - can you? 2. I don't think we'll be doing anything with UKCIP08 material, or briefing people; initially at least it will be about user needs without people thinking about how they might use UKCIP08, if that makes sense! 3. This is fine, although we may want some consistency between us e.g. Newcastle rates have been revised and are substantially larger than yours. 4. We need a pen portrait for Tim. 5. Thanks - we'll use this in with the other text. Best wishes, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 19 May 2008 15:36 To: Darch, Geoff J; Jim Hall; C G Kilsby; Mark New; ana.lopez@ouce.ox.ac.uk; Anthony Footitt; Suraje Dessai; Clare Goodess; t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Cc: McSweeney, Robert; Arkell, Brian; Sene, Kevin Subject: Re: EA 21389 - Probabilistic information to inform EA decision making on climate change impacts - PCC(08)01 Geoff, Clare is off to Chelsea - back late tomorrow. We (Clare, Tim and me) have had a brief meeting. Here are some thoughts and questions we had. 1. Were we going to do two sets of costings? 2. Those involved in UKCIP08 (both doing the work and involved in the SG) have signed confidentiality texts with DEFRA. Not sure how these affect access to the headline messages in the drafts we're going to be looking at over the next few months. Also not sure how these will affect the UKCIP workshops that are coming up before the launch. 3. We then thought about costs for the CRU work. We decided on 25K for all CRU work. At £500 per day this comes to 50 days. We then split this into the tasks: 5 - 5 days, 6 - 5 days, 7 - 30 days, 10/11 - 5 days, which leaves 5 more days for meetings. Assumed the 25K was without travel to the meetings. 4. On CVs and pen portraits. Clare will send one before she leaves. Are what you have for Tim and me OK? 5. Some thoughts on Tasks 6 and 7 Task 6 - assumed this was mostly Newcastle. Tim's work on rainfall extremes could be fed in, and we can do something on non-rainfall variables. Assume also you expect us to do waves, but not sure what we can do. It seems as though sea level has become waves? Task 7 - assumed here Newcastle (Chris/Hayley) would be doing something on blocking (large-scale variability). Oxford would do the final bit on conceptual representation of emissions and climate system and sensitivities, so based on GCMs. This leaves CRU for the other three, which we base mainly on the 11 RCM runs, which we can access through LINK. We could also use ENSEMBLES runs for the others, but these would be RCMs. They seem more relevant for the sorts of scales UKCOP08 is working at. All just a few thoughts at this time. Can you send the UKWIR bid that went off, so we have a copy? Cheers Phil At 09:06 16/05/2008, Darch, Geoff J wrote: >Dear all, > >Please find attached the final tender pack for the Environment Agency >bid. The tasks have been re-jigged, with the main change being a >broadening of flood risk management to flood and coastal erosion risk >management (FCERM). This means a wider audience to include all >operating authorities, and the best practice guidance required (new >Task >11) is now substantial element, to include evaluation of FCERM climate >change adaptation, case studies and provision of evidence to help >upgrade the FCDPAG3 Supplementary Note. > >We have just one week to finish this tender, as it must be posted on >Friday 23rd. We are putting together the bid document, which we'll >circulate on Monday 19th, but in the meantime, and by the end of >Tuesday 20th, I need everyone to send information (as indicated in >brackets) to support the following structure: > >+ Understanding of the tender >+ Methodology and programme (methodology for tasks / sub-tasks - see >below - and timing) >+ Project team, including individual and corporate experience (who you >are putting forward, pen portraits, corporate case studies) >+ Financial and commercial (day rates and number of days; please also >highlight potential issues with the T&Cs e.g. IPR) >+ Health & Safety, Quality and Environmental Management Appendices >+ (full CVs, limited to 6 pages) > >Please send to me and Rob McSweeney. The information I have already >e.g. on day rates, core pen portraits etc will go straight into the >version we're working on, so no need to re-send. > >In terms of tasks (new nos.), the following organisation is suggested >based on what has been noted to date: > >Task 1 (Inception meeting and reporting) Atkins, supported by lead >representatives of partners Task 2 (Project board meetings) Atkins, >supported by lead representatives of partners Task 3 (Analysis of user >needs) Atkins with Tyn@UEA and OUCE, plus Futerra depending on style >Task 4 (Phase 2 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task 5 (Interpret >messages from UKCIP08 projections) CRU, OUCE and Newcastle, with Atkins >advice on sectors Task 6 (Development of business specific projections) >Newcastle and CRU, with Atkins advice on policy and ops Task 7 (Putting >UKCIP08 in context) CRU, Newcastle and OUCE Task 8 (User guidance) >Atkins, Tyn@UEA, Futerra Task 9 (Pilot studies) Atkins, Newcastle, >OUCE, Tyn@UEA Task 10 (Phase 3 programme) Atkins, supported by all Task >11 (Best Practice Guidance for FCERM) Newcastle and Atkins, with CRU >Task 12 (Awareness raising events) Atkins, key experts, Futerra >(perhaps as an option as EA are quite specific here) Task 13 (Training >events) Atkins and Futerra > >Note that Futerra is a communications consultancy, specialising in >sustainability, who will input on workshops and on the guidance >documents. > >I'll be in touch again early next week. > >Best wishes, > >Geoff > >Geoff Darch > >Senior Consultant >Water and Environment >ATKINS > >Broadoak, Southgate Park, Bakewell Road, Orton Southgate, Peterborough, >PE2 6YS, UK >Tel: +44 (0) 1733 366969 >Fax: +44 (0) 1733 366999 >Mobile: +44 (0) 7834 507590 >E-mail: geoff.darch@atkinsglobal.com >Web: [2]www.atkinsglobal.com/climate_change > > > > > >This email and any attached files are >confidential and copyright protected. If you are not the addressee, any >dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unless >otherwise expressly agreed in writing, nothing stated in this >communication shall be legally binding. > >The ultimate parent company of the Atkins Group is WS Atkins plc. >Registered in England No. >1885586. Registered Office Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey >KT18 5BW. A list of wholly owned Atkins Group companies registered in >the United Kingdom can be found at >[3]http://www.atkinsglobal.com/terms_and_conditions/index.aspx > >Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you >really need to. > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 has been scanned for viruses by MailControl - (see http://bluepages.wsatkins.co.uk/?6875772) Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3280. 2008-08-18 12:58:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:58:09 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Phil Jones , Gavin Schmidt Phil (and Gavin), there is one more big problem in the current draft. the borehole section is hugely unbalanced. it is truly awful, and this was never dealt w/ in the previous revisions. I can't sign my name to a paper that has such a whitewash treatment of borehole data (this section looks like it was written by Pollack and Gonzalez-Rouco, w/out any of acknowledgment of the many problematic issues that have been raised by others). At a very minimum , for my name to remain on this paper, the following changes need to be made. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the changes. I feel I must state this as being mandatory for inclusion of my name in the paper. I can't sign my name to a grossly misbalanced discussion of borehole data. I hope you understand this, mike 1. 2nd paragraph, page 44, first sentence: Borehole reconstructions have particular value because they do not have to be calibrated against the instrumental record and because temperature itself is measured directly. should be changed to: Borehole reconstructions have an advantage in that they arguably needn't be calibrated against the instrumental record because they measure temperature itself is measured directly. However, a disadvantage is that, as discussed above, they measure GST rather than the desired quantity (SAT), and under certain conditions there may be substantial differences between the two (see below). 2. last paragraph of section, last two sentences (bottom of page 44/top of page 55) Mann and Schmidt (2003), suggested that GST reconstructions may be biased by seasonal influences and snow cover variability, an interpretation contested by Chapman et al. (2004). Thousand-year simulations by González-Rouco et al. (2003, 2006) using the ECHO-G model suggests that seasonal differences in coupling are of little significance over long time scales. this is not correct. Mann and Schmidt (2003) show that there is a potentially very large seasonal bias in estimating winter SAT from winter GST, and any time that winter and summer trends are not similar (which they *happen* to be in some fairly unrealistic simulations such as Gonzalez-Rouco et al) this might not appear to be a problem. But in general, it is a huge problem!. Confidentially, we have a paper we will be submitting soon that provides an example (simulated early through mid holocene changes) where the impact of the snowcover GST bias on annual mean GST is huge, and leads to a highly biased assessment of past SAT changes from GST trends. More on that soon. But in the near term, it suffices to acknowledge the problem first hinted at by Mann and Schmidt, by revising the paragraph above to: Mann and Schmidt (2003) show that GST estimates during the winter season are biased by seasonal influences related to changing snow cover, and that less that 50% of the total spatiotemporal variance in GST is explained by SAT variations during the cold half of the year. Chapman et al. (2004) contest the implications this has for recent temperature trends [contested in turn by Schmidt and Mann (2004)], and some long-term simulations [e.g. by González-Rouco et al. (2003, 2006) using the ECHO-G model] suggests the possibility that seasonal differences in coupling might be of little significance over long time scales as long as temperature trends are similar in different seasons. However, in cases where there are large seasonal differences in climate trends (a possibility that remains for the past few centuries--see Mann et al, 2003) such seasonal bias issues could lead to misleading inferences regarding long-term SAT trends from indicators of past GST change. References: Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., [1]Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003. Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., [2]Reply to comment on ``Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions'' by D. Chapman et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07206, doi: 10.1029/2003GL0119144, 2004. Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the responses to the reviewers. We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by the beginning of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next Monday is a national holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look through your parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or over the weekend? Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let me know of any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I think just look wrong? I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. 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 [3]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: [4]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [5]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm "Dire Predictions" book site: [6]http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,0 0.html 1007. 2008-08-18 13:37:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Aug 18 13:37:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Expert Meeting on Updating the GCOS Implementation Plan (1st to: "GCOSJPO" Paul, Stephan, I've made a note of the dates and they are good for me. I probably won't have any of my own resources, so would need full support. Cheers Phil At 13:49 15/08/2008, GCOSJPO wrote: 15 August 2008 Dear Colleague, GCOS is planning an expert meeting devoted to updating the 2004 "Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC", to be held 2-5 February 2009 in Geneva, Switzerland. This meeting will consist of about 30 participants covering the atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial domains of the global observing systems for climate. The group will, subject to the guidelines previously set by the UNFCCC, undertake a critical review of existing requirements in the Implementation Plan, such as the GCOS networks and the list of Essential Climate Variables. The update will also include consideration of emerging issues, such as observations in support of regional modelling, and observational needs in the context of adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Nearly five years after publication of the Implementation Plan, such an update is timely and urgently needed. The Implementation Plan and its 2006 "Satellite Supplement" have provided consensus by the climate community as to its priority needs for systematic observation of climate. Many agents of implementation identified in the Plan have incorporated the requirements expressed into their own strategies and plans. With the Plan, the GCOS has been recognized as the climate observation component of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). Significant progress in GCOS implementation has been made in some areas, although progress remains more limited or absent in others. GCOS is currently undertaking a comprehensive assessment of progress against the Implementation Plan, which will be available in draft form by the time of the February 2009 meeting. We would like to ensure good and balanced attendance and would therefore ask you to check your availability for this meeting and reply to gcosjpo@wmo.int at your earliest convenience, but no later than by 29 August 2008. If you are available and willing to attend, you will receive a formal invitation in due course. There are limited funds available for the meeting to support your travel and per diem, although it would be extremely helpful if you were able to meet some or all of your expenses from other sources. We look forward to your participation and to a productive and engaging meeting. Best regards, Paul Mason Stephan Bojinski (on behalf of the GCOS Steering Committee) Reference: Implementation Plan for the Global Observing System for Climate in Support of the UNFCCC, GCOS-92, October 2004: [1]http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-92_GIP.pdf Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) c/o World Meteorological Organization 7bis, Avenue de la Paix; 1211 Geneva 2 Switzerland Email: gcosjpo@wmo.int Phone: +41 22 730 8067 Web: [2]http://gcos.wmo.int Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1984. 2008-08-19 06:50:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 06:50:31 -0400 from: Brendan Buckley subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Phil Jones Yes, Gavin, Ben was along with me on my project in Vietnam this past spring (I have been working there the past couple of years). We have an important Vietnam conifer paper accepted in Climate Dynamics, with Sano as first author and it is described in the text, and I have a new 700+ year ring width chronology from the same species from 12 degrees latitude that is just hot off the microscope, with amazingly robust signal strength. We have strong evidence for several multi-decadal scale droughts that extended across SEA (they show up in my 2007 Climate Dynamics paper on teak from northwestern Thailand, in Sano's paper from north Vietnam fokienia, and now my own record from south Vietnam fokienia). We see that the time of Angkor collapse was smack in the middle of the worst extended drought of the past 700 years. I plan to submit a paper in the next 2 months on this, after we finish our Monsoon workshop in mid September. I had a bit more of this in the first version but I seem to recall some comments to the effect that I was tooting the LDEO horn too much so I toned it down and included all the Poussart and isotope references that people seemed to want. As I told Phil and Keith, I can change direction on this section any way people think appropriate. Just let me know if you want me to include any of this, or anything else, and I can rewrite over this next weekend. I also don't want to steal thunder from the paper I am about to submit, but I think I can find the correct balance. Thanks, Brendan On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:11 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Gavin, See next email re the final Appendix plot. The tropical dendro section is much larger. It was mainly written by Brendan Buckley who was likely with Ben on any recent coring trip to SE Asia. The section is optimistic. There are sentences on dating of trees without rings using isotopes. Cheers Phil At 17:39 18/08/2008, you wrote: a couple of quick points - more later. - why does the CET line on figure A1 only go to 1950? Surely you have enough data to go to 1982 with no padding? I think that it is important to graphically show that even if you take IPCC90 at face value, it still shows that today is warmer. The graph will be looked at much more often than the text will be read. - I was talking to Ben Cook recently, and he was describing some tree species in Vietnam and Thailand that clearly had annual rings and that they were in the process of cross-validating the dating. In general, he was pretty optimistic about the prospects for tropical dendro. Thus in the response to reviewers and maybe the text, we should be quite open to this. Gavin On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 06:00, Phil Jones wrote: > Dear All, > Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the > responses to the reviewers. > We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by > the beginning > of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next Monday > is a national > holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look through your > parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or over the > weekend? > Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let me know of > any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I think just look > wrong? > I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Brendan M. Buckley Doherty Research Scientist Tree-Ring Laboratory, Room 108 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964 USA [3]bmb@ldeo.columbia.edu, tel: +1 845 365 8782 [4]http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/ 4215. 2008-08-19 08:53:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:53:57 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Phil Jones p.s. regarding the CET issue, I realize that may not be our intent, but I'd hate for us to produce a graphic so easily misrepresented by the naysayers. We reallyneed to find a way to show the true current warmth on the scale, either throuh not dropping the end, or showing the raw annual series for comparison to the smoothed long-term curves, mike Phil Jones wrote: Mike, Gavin, On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn't to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is that CET has been so warm the last 20 years or so. Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the summer is lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year. Warmth in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds when it comes to warming. Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been written by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I will mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff. Cheers Phil At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over. only 2 substantial comments: 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3 (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling. the end of the first sentence: - e.g., Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Küttel et al., 2007), should be changed to: - e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; Küttel et al., 2007), 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1. It sounds like the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would suggest one of two alternative approaches: a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I don't see any objective justification for doing that) or b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak. By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to publication (which should be one or two weeks from now). thanks, mike Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the responses to the reviewers. We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by the beginning of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next Monday is a national holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look through your parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or over the weekend? Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let me know of any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I think just look wrong? I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 website: [3] http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm "Dire Predictions" book site: [4] http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 [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 website: [7]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm "Dire Predictions" book site: [8]http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,0 0.html 1673. 2008-08-19 10:30:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Gavin Schmidt , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Tue Aug 19 10:30:15 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: mann@psu.edu Mike, Gavin, On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of the annual CET record were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did this with them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The purpose of the piece was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. It wasn't to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the red/blue lines, as they are crap anyway. The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in the IPCC diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully back in or dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes quite a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is that CET has been so warm the last 20 years or so. Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the summer is lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year. Warmth in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds when it comes to warming. Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been written by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I will mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff. Cheers Phil At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Phil, traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over. only 2 substantial comments: 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3 (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling. the end of the first sentence: e.g., Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Küttel et al., 2007), should be changed to: e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; Küttel et al., 2007), 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1. It sounds like the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would suggest one of two alternative approaches: a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I don't see any objective justification for doing that) or b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak. By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to publication (which should be one or two weeks from now). thanks, mike Phil Jones wrote: Dear All, Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the responses to the reviewers. We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by the beginning of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next Monday is a national holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look through your parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or over the weekend? Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let me know of any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I think just look wrong? I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 website: [3]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm "Dire Predictions" book site: [4]http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,0 0.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4009. 2008-08-19 10:40:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Aug 19 10:40:55 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: RE: AGW arguments to: Michael Schlesinger Mike, Go here - [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ and scroll down to where you can download the HadCRUT3 data for the Globe. You can also get NH and SH separately and the HadCRUT3v version is also there. In the global column the value for 2008 is based on the first 7 months of the year. There are several ways to answer the question 1. Extract the SOI signal from the global T record. 2. The easiest though is just to put a regression line through the values from 1998 to 2007. This gives a +ve trend, but not sig as you'd expect. Adding 2008 may make the trend -ve, but it still wouldn't be significant. La Nina is the reason, as you know for the cooling. As soon as we get an El Nino, then ... It is not me doing the WW2 adjustments. It does seem to be taking MOHC some time to do this. I reckon they are trying to add in more of the newly digitized British SST data for the period. Cheers Phil At 19:43 18/08/2008, you wrote: Phil: In order for me to answer the second question below, shown in red, please send me your latest compilation of the global, annual mean temperature departures. In a related matter, when do you anticipate completing the correction for the post-1945 temperature error that result from the British navy's resumption of bucket SST measurements then? Michael X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1219083574-7214032f0000-AEr4jg X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1219083574-7214032f0000-AEr4jg X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1219083574-7214032f0000-AEr4jg X-Barracuda-URL: [2]http://140.233.2.12:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi From: "Isham, Jon" To: "'peden@middlebury.net'" CC: "'Ethan Allen Institute'" , "'Michael Schlesinger'" Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:27 -0400 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: RE: AGW arguments Subject: RE: AGW arguments Thread-Topic: AGW arguments Thread-Index: AckBS49hobYZmEoYR3mjgGaQdtX2eAAEn5Kw Accept-Language: en-US acceptlanguage: en-US X-Barracuda-Connect: junglecat.middlebury.edu[140.233.2.175] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1219083574 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: RC4-MD5 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at middlebury.edu X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 1.70 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=1.70 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1000.0 tests=BSF_SC0_SA074, BSF_SC0_SA074b, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE, HTML_MESSAGE X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.1.3030 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.00 EXTRA_MPART_TYPE Header has extraneous Content-type:...type= entry 0.50 BSF_SC0_SA074 URI: Custom Rule SA074 0.20 BSF_SC0_SA074b URI: Custom Rule SA074b 0.00 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message Jim: I am passing your email along to my friend Michael Schlesinger at U. Illinois-Urbana, who is one of the world's most well-regarded climate scientists and an authors of dozens of referred articles on climate change. Michael, when you have a minute, would you mind addressing Jim's two central claims: that (a) 'There is to date, nothing in today's climate nor in the recent past which falls outside of the variability of normal climate change and that (b) 'since 1998, average global temperatures have been falling in spite of rising CO2 levels, again laying waste the notion that CO2 causes global warming. Thanks in advance Michael. Best regards, Jon Jonathan Isham Luce Professor of International Environmental Economics Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 802 443-3238 * [3]EC265 home page * [4]ES380 home page * [5]Home page and [6]Ignition: What You Can Do to Fight Global Warming and Spark a Movement ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Peden HQ [[7]mailto:peden@middlebury.net] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:59 AM To: Isham, Jon Cc: 'Ethan Allen Institute' Subject: Re: AGW arguments I prefer actual empirical science to artificially constructed climate "models". For example, the latest AQUA satellite data, as interpreted by Dr. Roy Spencer, showing the non-existence of the CO2 warming "fingerprint", laying waste to all of the climate models which predict otherwise. Roy's most simple conclusion, after examining the actual real-time data was, " This means the models are all wrong...". There is to date, nothing in today's climate nor in the recent past which falls outside of the variability of normal climate change. In fact, since 1998, average global temperatures have been falling in spite of rising CO2 levels, again laying waste the the notion that CO2 causes global warming. In fact, changing CO2 levels are a result, not a cause of global temperature excursions, as anyone who understands CO2 solubility in water already knows. Warmer (ocean) waters release CO2 and cooler waters absorb it, and CO2 lags, not leads, temperature in all known proxy data sets. Al Gore managed to get it exactly backward in his documentary, and the scientifically illiterate climate alarmist sheep have dutifully followed in lockstep with that notion. [] What does amaze me is the number of non-scientist climate pundits who chose to ignore the actual science in favor of terminally-flawed computer models which to date have failed to predict anything remotely accurate in terms of climate "change". They seem to actually believe that a consensus of wrong answers will magically change the laws of physics and result in the desired outcome as predicted by the failed climate models. "If we wish hard enough for the sky to fall, then it must...". For the mathematically and scientifically literate, I highly recommend [8]this very straightforward look at the actual physics behind the "greenhouse effect" -- for all others, I suggest a new line of work as the field of scientifically illiterate climate pundits is already overcrowded. Jim Peden Retired Atmospheric Physicist ================== Isham, Jon wrote: It is the full set of these. I recommend to both of you Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. [9]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ It documents well, in a Kuhnian sense, how we got to where we are. And it's interesting to see Marty Weitzman's new work: [10]http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/modeling.pdf Here's Krugman's recent summary: Martin Weitzman, a Harvard economist who has been driving much of the recent high-level debate, offers some sobering numbers. Surveying a wide range of climate models, he argues that, over all, they suggest about a 5 percent chance that world temperatures will eventually rise by more than 10 degrees Celsius (that is, world temperatures will rise by 18 degrees Fahrenheit). As Mr. Weitzman points out, that's enough to "effectively destroy planet Earth as we know it." Jon. Jonathan Isham Luce Professor of International Environmental Economics Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT 05753 802 443-3238 · [11]EC265 home page · [12]ES380 home page · [13]Home page and [14]Ignition: What You Can Do to Fight Global Warming and Spark a Movement ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Ethan Allen Institute [[15]mailto:ethanallen@kingcon.com] Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 9:10 AM To: Isham, Jon Subject: AGW arguments Just for clarity, which of the following rationales for AGW do you find compelling: Here are some possible choices : 1. All (or most) scientists agree 2. The 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years [the "hockeystick" argument] 3. Glaciers are melting, sea ice is shrinking, polar bears are in danger, etc 4. The weather has been unusual: Hurricane Katrina etc 5. Greenhouse models all agree that the climate should warm 6. Sea levels are rising 7. Correlation -- both CO2 and temperature are always increasing 8. Models using both natural and human forcing accurately reproduce the detailed behavior of 20th century global temperature. 9. Natural forcings are known well enough so remaining warming must be human-caused 10. Modeled and observed PATTERNS of temperature trends ("fingerprints") of the past 30 years agree No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - [16]http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.5/1618 - Release Date: 8/18/2008 6:51 AM Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg" Content-Description: image001.jpg Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=21510; creation-date="Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:25 GMT"; modification-date="Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:19:25 GMT" Content-ID: Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1247. 2008-08-19 13:07:32 ______________________________________________________ date: 19 Aug 2008 13:07:32 -0400 from: Gavin Schmidt subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Phil Jones Phil, here are some edits - mostly language, a couple of bits of logic, an attempt to soothe Mike on the borehole bit, and a paragraph for consideration in the Appendix. Two questions require a little thinking - the reference to 'regional freshening' on the coral section needs to be more specific - I doubt it is a global phenomena, second there is an 'in prep' reference to some new work by van Ommen - I don't think this is appropriate and should either be removed and put as a personal communication. Having looked over the tropical trees section, I think that's fine. The fig A1 does need labelling though. Gavin On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:11, Phil Jones wrote: > Mike, > Peck didn't do the speleothem bit either. > Cheers > Phil > > Mike, > Have your text in - just need to read the borehole section again. > Noted your comment re the final Appendix figure. Will look at more > when Tim back. > Peck's bit is 2.5 and the terrestrial part of 2.6 - except for the > borehole text. > > Next time I co-ordinate anything I'll get the GB cycling coach > involved. We've just one our 7th gold medal on two wheels. Only > one short of Phelps. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:52 19/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > thanks Phil--which part is Peck's? I'd like to read it over > > carefully, > > > > mike > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > Mike, Gavin, > > > On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of > > > the annual CET record > > > were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did > > > this with > > > them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The > > > purpose of the piece > > > was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. > > > It wasn't > > > to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the > > > red/blue lines, > > > as they are crap anyway. > > > The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in > > > the IPCC > > > diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully > > > back in or > > > dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes > > > quite > > > a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is > > > that CET > > > has been so warm the last 20 years or so. > > > Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the > > > summer is > > > lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year. > > > Warmth > > > in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds > > > when it comes to warming. > > > > > > Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been > > > written > > > by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I > > > will > > > mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over. > > > > only 2 substantial comments: > > > > > > > > 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3 > > > > (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement > > > > here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of > > > > 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling. > > > > the end of the first sentence: > > > > e.g., Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Küttel et al., 2007), > > > > should be changed to: > > > > e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and González-Rouco, > > > > 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; Küttel et al., 2007), > > > > > > > > 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the > > > > description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1. It sounds like > > > > the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If > > > > so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past > > > > decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would > > > > suggest one of two alternative approaches: > > > > a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I > > > > don't see any objective justification for doing that) or > > > > b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how > > > > the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak. > > > > > > > > By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press > > > > in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to > > > > publication (which should be one or two weeks from now). > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > Here's the revised version of the paper, together with > > > > > the responses to the reviewers. > > > > > We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him > > > > > by the beginning > > > > > of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next > > > > > Monday is a national > > > > > holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look > > > > > through your > > > > > parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week > > > > > or over the > > > > > weekend? > > > > > Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and > > > > > let me know of > > > > > any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I > > > > > think just look > > > > > wrong? > > > > > I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > website: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > website: > > > > http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\wengendraft_version_18Aug_GS.doc" 310. 2008-08-19 15:35:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Tim Osborn" date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:35:56 +0100 from: "Rachel Warren" subject: results to: "Rita Yu" Rita The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases as I have commented before. I would like to try to understand why, before we finish the paper. As it stands we'll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published. The Figure 2 you are going to send me will help with this (understanding the global T and conc that we set). Do you have the CIAS configuration files that you used? We need to check that the model settings you used for the stabilisation scenarios for 550. 500 and 450 were exactly the same as the ones you used for 400, in particular the ClimGen settings. I also need to see what those settings were so that I can try to think why the outputs of thr 400 might be anomalous. Best wishes Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@uea.ac.uk 1492. 2008-08-20 09:32:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Michael Mann date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: Gavin Schmidt Gavin, Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing - he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent bias(es). Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle. The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on. Cheers Phil At 18:07 19/08/2008, you wrote: Phil, here are some edits - mostly language, a couple of bits of logic, an attempt to soothe Mike on the borehole bit, and a paragraph for consideration in the Appendix. Two questions require a little thinking - the reference to 'regional freshening' on the coral section needs to be more specific - I doubt it is a global phenomena, second there is an 'in prep' reference to some new work by van Ommen - I don't think this is appropriate and should either be removed and put as a personal communication. Having looked over the tropical trees section, I think that's fine. The fig A1 does need labelling though. Gavin On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:11, Phil Jones wrote: > Mike, > Peck didn't do the speleothem bit either. > Cheers > Phil > > Mike, > Have your text in - just need to read the borehole section again. > Noted your comment re the final Appendix figure. Will look at more > when Tim back. > Peck's bit is 2.5 and the terrestrial part of 2.6 - except for the > borehole text. > > Next time I co-ordinate anything I'll get the GB cycling coach > involved. We've just one our 7th gold medal on two wheels. Only > one short of Phelps. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 13:52 19/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > thanks Phil--which part is Peck's? I'd like to read it over > > carefully, > > > > mike > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > Mike, Gavin, > > > On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of > > > the annual CET record > > > were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did > > > this with > > > them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The > > > purpose of the piece > > > was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. > > > It wasn't > > > to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the > > > red/blue lines, > > > as they are crap anyway. > > > The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in > > > the IPCC > > > diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully > > > back in or > > > dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes > > > quite > > > a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is > > > that CET > > > has been so warm the last 20 years or so. > > > Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the > > > summer is > > > lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year. > > > Warmth > > > in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds > > > when it comes to warming. > > > > > > Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been > > > written > > > by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I > > > will > > > mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Phil > > > > > > At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over. > > > > only 2 substantial comments: > > > > > > > > 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3 > > > > (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement > > > > here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of > > > > 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling. > > > > the end of the first sentence: > > > > e.g., Zorita and González-Rouco, 2002, Küttel et al., 2007), > > > > should be changed to: > > > > e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and González-Rouco, > > > > 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; Küttel et al., 2007), > > > > > > > > 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the > > > > description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1. It sounds like > > > > the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If > > > > so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past > > > > decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would > > > > suggest one of two alternative approaches: > > > > a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I > > > > don't see any objective justification for doing that) or > > > > b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how > > > > the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak. > > > > > > > > By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press > > > > in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to > > > > publication (which should be one or two weeks from now). > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > Here's the revised version of the paper, together with > > > > > the responses to the reviewers. > > > > > We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him > > > > > by the beginning > > > > > of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next > > > > > Monday is a national > > > > > holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look > > > > > through your > > > > > parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week > > > > > or over the > > > > > weekend? > > > > > Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and > > > > > let me know of > > > > > any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I > > > > > think just look > > > > > wrong? > > > > > I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > website: > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > website: > > > > [3]http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > [4]http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3927. 2008-08-21 08:28:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:28:06 +1000 from: Janice Lough subject: RE: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper to: "Phil Jones" Hi Phil Yes, probably being a bit picky.............Have added "at some coral sites" in the following sentence where Gavin had "where?". There isn't enough space (nor do I think it necessary) to detail which sites are more/less effected - the main point is (as demonstrated by the coral vs inst. SST trends in the next sentence) that this mixed signal is an important source of uncertainty in obtaining a pure SST signal in coral oxygen isotope records. "For example, δ18O records can overestimate 20th century SST warming if the coral record is considered only as a temperature record and the standard temperature dependence relationship of about -0.2 ‰ ï¤18O /°C is appllied, as regional freshening at some coral sites has likely contributed to coral ï¤18O trends." Hope this helps, Janice Janice M. Lough Principal Research Scientist Australian Institute of Marine Science PMB 3, Townsville MC Queensland 4810 Australia email: j.lough@aims.gov.au Tel: (07) 47 534248 Fax: (07) 47 725852 -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, 20 August 2008 17:40 PM To: Janice Lough Subject: Fwd: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper Janice, I'll incorporate most of Gavin's comments. I also have just received a couple from Sandy. Can you define this regional freshening a bit? This is in section 2.2.3. Gavin could be being picky, but have a quick look. Cheers Phil >X-Authentication-Warning: isotope.giss.nasa.gov: >gavin set sender to gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov using -f >Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper >From: Gavin Schmidt >To: Phil Jones >Organization: >X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) >Date: 19 Aug 2008 13:07:32 -0400 >X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 4772568, limit: 153600) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 > >Phil, here are some edits - mostly language, a couple of bits of logic, >an attempt to soothe Mike on the borehole bit, and a paragraph for >consideration in the Appendix. Two questions require a little thinking - >the reference to 'regional freshening' on the coral section needs to be >more specific - I doubt it is a global phenomena, second there is an 'in >prep' reference to some new work by van Ommen - I don't think this is >appropriate and should either be removed and put as a personal >communication. > >Having looked over the tropical trees section, I think that's fine. > >The fig A1 does need labelling though. > >Gavin > >On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 09:11, Phil Jones wrote: > > Mike, > > Peck didn't do the speleothem bit either. > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > Mike, > > Have your text in - just need to read the borehole section again. > > Noted your comment re the final Appendix figure. Will look at more > > when Tim back. > > Peck's bit is 2.5 and the terrestrial part of 2.6 - except for the > > borehole text. > > > > Next time I co-ordinate anything I'll get the GB cycling coach > > involved. We've just one our 7th gold medal on two wheels. Only > > one short of Phelps. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > > At 13:52 19/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > > thanks Phil--which part is Peck's? I'd like to read it over > > > carefully, > > > > > > mike > > > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > > Mike, Gavin, > > > > On the final Appendix plot, the first and last 12 years of > > > > the annual CET record > > > > were omitted from the smoothed plot. Tim's away, but when he did > > > > this with > > > > them in the light blue line goes off the plot at the end. The > > > > purpose of the piece > > > > was to show that the red/black lines were essentially the same. > > > > It wasn't > > > > to show the current light blue smoothed line was above the > > > > red/blue lines, > > > > as they are crap anyway. > > > > The y-axis scale of the plot is constrained by what was in > > > > the IPCC > > > > diagram from the first report. What we'll try is adding it fully > > > > back in or > > > > dashing the first/last 12 years. The 50-year smoother includes > > > > quite > > > > a bit of padding - we're using your technique Mike. The issue is > > > > that CET > > > > has been so warm the last 20 years or so. > > > > Normal people in the UK think the weather is cold and the > > > > summer is > > > > lousy, but the CET is on course for another very warm year. > > > > Warmth > > > > in winter/spring doesn't seem to count in most people's minds > > > > when it comes to warming. > > > > > > > > Will mod the borehole section now. Because this had been > > > > written > > > > by Juerg initially, I added in a paraphrased section from AR4. I > > > > will > > > > mod this accordingly. Hope you noticed Peck's stuff. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > At 17:28 18/08/2008, Michael Mann wrote: > > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > > > > > > > traveling, and only had brief opportunity to look this over. > > > > > only 2 substantial comments: > > > > > > > > > > 1. I don't know who wrote the first paragraph of section 3.3 > > > > > (bottom of page 52/page 53), but the lack of acknowledgement > > > > > here in this key summary that we actually introduced the idea of > > > > > 'pseudoproxies' into the climate literature is very troubling. > > > > > the end of the first sentence: > > > > > e.g., Zorita and GonzĂ¡lez-Rouco, 2002, KĂ¼ttel et al., 2007), > > > > > should be changed to: > > > > > e.g., Mann and Rutherford, 2002; Zorita and GonzĂ¡lez-Rouco, > > > > > 2002, Rutherford et al, 2003; KĂ¼ttel et al., 2007), > > > > > > > > > > 2. I'm also a bit confused and very concerned about the > > > > > description of smoothing in Appendix A Figure 1. It sounds like > > > > > the last 12 years were removed from the end of the series? If > > > > > so, that's not a fair comparison because its really the past > > > > > decade that takes us into 'unprecedented' territory. I would > > > > > suggest one of two alternative approaches: > > > > > a. show the full smoothed curve without removing end data (I > > > > > don't see any objective justification for doing that) or > > > > > b. show the raw annual data through 2006 so readers can see how > > > > > the most recent values compare w/ the MWP peak. > > > > > > > > > > By the way, I have a revised version of Mann [2004] now in press > > > > > in GRL, I've attached. Please don't distribute or cite prior to > > > > > publication (which should be one or two weeks from now). > > > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Here's the revised version of the paper, together with > > > > > > the responses to the reviewers. > > > > > > We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him > > > > > > by the beginning > > > > > > of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next > > > > > > Monday is a national > > > > > > holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look > > > > > > through your > > > > > > parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week > > > > > > or over the > > > > > > weekend? > > > > > > Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and > > > > > > let me know of > > > > > > any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I > > > > > > think just look > > > > > > wrong? > > > > > > I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > website: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > > > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > > > > website: > > > > > > http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm > > > "Dire Predictions" book site: > > > > > > http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information contained in this communication is for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain information which is the subject of legal privilege and/or copyright. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete the transmission, together with any attachments, from your system. Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2921. 2008-08-21 10:43:36 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:43:36 -0700 from: Karl Taylor subject: Documenting the scientific impact of the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model to: undisclosed-recipients:; Dear user of the CMIP3 multi-model dataset at PCMDI (once referred to as the IPCC AR4 archive): This email is to urge you to: *PLEASE ADD/EDIT ENTRIES TO THE LIST ON THE PCMDI WEBSITE OF ALL YOUR PUBLICATIONS THAT ARE BASED ON THE CMIP3 MULTI-MODEL DATASET. THE ACTION ITEMS ARE SHOWN IN ALL CAPS BELOW. THANK YOU.* It has been a year (I think) since I last reminded you to record or update entries on our website listing all papers you have written that make use of WCRP CMIP3 model output (produced in support of the IPCC AR4). I want to thank those of you who have responded in the past (and continue to update your entries); the list has grown to about 400 entries (see http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/subproject_publications.php ). Given that there are now over 2000 registered users of the data and nearly 1.5 million files downloaded, we hope the publication list will continue to grow substantially. This email is to remind you that modeling groups and the WCRP can only justify future activities of this kind if they can document the impact of this data archive on our science, so **** IF YOU HAVE SUBMITTED OR PUBLISHED A PAPER THAT MADE USE OF THE DATA IN THE ARCHIVE, PLEASE ADD IT TO THE LIST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. It is a good way to publicize your paper and will help maintain modeling group participation in future exercises of this kind. **** ALSO PLEASE UPDATE ANY ENTRIES WHERE THE STATUS OF A PAPER HAS CHANGED. **** YOU MAY ENTER, UPDATE, AND EDIT THE CITATION INFORMATION FOR YOUR PUBLICATIONS (AND YOUR PAPERS IN PREPARATION) BY going to: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/diagnostic_subprojects.php and then clicking on the last entry: "Miscellaneous Research Publications Based on IPCC Model Output". Some early users of the database have subprojects that are listed individually. Those users should click on their named subproject. Once you have clicked on "miscellaneous" or your subproject, scroll to the bottom of the page where you will find a link to "add publication", which will take you to a form to fill out. You may also edit the entries for existing papers listed on this page using the "edit" link next to the paper. Before you can enter information into the form, you will be asked for your user id and password, which are the same as those you use to access the data archive at PCMDI. If you've forgotten your user id and/or password, you will find buttons to click for assistance. The more complete this list of publications is, the more accurately it will reflect the true impact you all have made, so please don't delay. There are more than two thousand users now, so I am quite sure some publications are missing. One final point. As noted above, the official name of the data archive is the "WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset" (not, e.g., the IPCC AR4 dataset). The official name properly credit's the WCRP which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM), was responsible for coordination of this modeling acitivity as the latest phase of its series of CMIP exercises. The IPCC assessment relied heavily on the dataset, but was not fundamentally responsible for it. **** IN ALL FUTURE PUBLICATIONS, PLEASE PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE MODEL OUTPUT BY INCLUDING THE WORDS GIVEN AT: http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/info_for_analysts.php#Proper_acknowledgement Thanks very much for taking a few minutes to do this. Best regards, Karl Taylor taylor13@llnl.gov P.S. PCMDI invites comments/suggestions concerning your experience in obtaining model output from this archive. In preparing for CMIP5 (and future IPCC activities of this kind), we welcome your ideas. 3118. 2008-08-22 11:02:20 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:02:20 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: problem with one of your people not sharing data to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk FYI >X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender >to using -f >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:37:23 +0100 >From: Thomas Crowley >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) >To: mpurdy@ldeo.columbia.edu >Subject: problem with one of your people not sharing data >X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk > with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.16.102 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 >X-Canit-CHI2: 0.04 >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 8116828 - 0c758170106a (trained as not-spam) >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=8116828&m=0c758170106a&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=8116828&m=0c758170106a&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=8116828&m=0c758170106a&c=s > >Dear Dr. Purdy: > >I am writing to you as the "last course of appeal" - otherwise I >wouldn't bother you from more important work. > >For years I and many fellow investigators have been trying to get >Gordon Jacoby to share his data on a valuable long tree ring record >he has produced from Mongolia. > >the efforts have almost always failed - the only exception I know of >is when he let Ed Cook use the data - big deal! > >after appealing to NSF Gordon did release some of the data to the >NOAA data repository but he did not release the synthesized index >that is useful for including in other time series - only the raw data from >the individual time series > >yes one could look at the raw data and compile it oneself but don't >you think it is best to have what the original investigator thinks >is the best long term (back to about 900 AD*) reconstruction? > >I compile ice core records to develop a unified record of volcanism >for the last 2000 years - if an investigator want a copy of my >reconstruction I send the final version to them, the one that involved >several years work, not the individual cores - the analogy should be >the same with Gordon. > >as a receiver of tons of federal money Lamont is obligated to share >such data, and I KNOW they do so virtually all the time. sadly this >is an exception and if I cannot get you to get him to release >the synthesized data, then no one will ever have it - it will be a >repeat of the Gerard Bond case where he refused to have his data >released EVEN AFTER HE DIED (equivalent to giving everyone >the finger from your coffin!) > >please please - you are really the last hope for us. > >with regards, > >Tom Crowley >University of Edinburgh > > >* I specifically list 900 AD because, knowing Gordon, if he were >asked by you, he would probably only give it back to 1500 AD unless >someone was twisting his arm to give up the whole time series > >-- >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2752. 2008-08-24 16:12:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Nathan Gillett" , "Dáithí Stone" , "Phil Jones" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Michael Wehner" date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:12:14 +0100 from: "Peter Stott" subject: Re: Decision on Nature Geoscience manuscript NGS-2008-07-00710 to: "Alexey Karpechko" Hi Nathan The two reviews certainly make for a contrasting set. I must admit I have a bit of sympathy for the first reviewer in the sense that we could really do with nailing better the processes that are causing the observed Antarctic temp changes because we do want to avoid an attribution result that is detecting a fingerprint derived from a cancellation of errors in the model. Given the strong expected effects of the SAM on peninsula warming and continental cooling, and the difficulties AR4 models have of simulating the SAM, I still feel we could make more of the SAM-removed residual trends. Maybe the story is that the model correctly captures the large scale anthropogenically forced SAM-removed residual warming whereas we have more work to do to disentangle the causes of the SAM part of Antarctic temperature changes ? The very enthusiasm of reviewer 2 makes me a bit nervous - we want to be careful of attributing grid-box trends if we haven't understand the influence of circulation changes. Hopefully though we can address this and get the paper through. Cheers, Peter On 8/14/08, Alexey Karpechko wrote: > Hi Nathan, > While the issue of trend significance may be the primary one, the reviewer > rises another issue: that models > may not accurately simulate the impact of anthropogenic forcing on > Antarctic surface temperatures. > Well, results of Monaghan et al. 2008b (which should be mentioned in the > text) suggest that models may overestimate the observed trends, likely due > to too strong water vapour feedback. > But, I guess, they do not overestimate the trends too strongly since D&A > analysis still finds observed trends consistent with modelled ones, correct? > Therefore, we have no reason so far to think that model shortcomings are > fatal for D&A analysis. > D&A analysis of station data contradicts somehow to results of Monaghan et > al. 2008b but I do not think this is the reason to withdraw the manuscript > since different > data set and different method is used. > Therefore, I think we could properly address this issue risen by the > reviewer if you decide to resubmit the manuscript, which is worth trying. > > Cheers > Alexey > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Gillett" > To: "Dáithí Stone" ; "Phil Jones" ; > "Gabi Hegerl" ; "Peter Stott" > ; "Toru Nozawa" ; "Alexey > Karpechko" ; "Michael Wehner" > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:59 PM > Subject: Fwd: Decision on Nature Geoscience manuscript NGS-2008-07-00710 > > > > > > Hi all, > > We now have the reviews back on the polar temperature paper. > > Unfortunately it's rejected with a suggestion that we resubmit. One > > reviewer (reviewer 2) was very positive, and had few suggested > > changes. The other reviewer was unconvinced of the Antarctic analysis > > - his primary objection seemed to be that we shouldn't be able to > > detect anthro influence on Antarctic temperature if station > > temperature trends are not locally significant. However, he appeared > > not to consider that a large scale mean, or pattern of temperature > > trends may be significant even if individual station trends are not. > > Addressing these comments by calculating the significance of area mean > > temperature trends etc should be relatively straightforward - we've > > got to try to convince the non-specialist that the Antarctic trends > > are significant independently of the D&A analysis. I think it's worth > > revising and resubmitting to Nature Geoscience. Let me know what you > > think and suggestions for revising the paper. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nathan > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: > > Date: 2008/8/13 > > Subject: Decision on Nature Geoscience manuscript NGS-2008-07-00710 > > To: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk > > > > > > 13th Aug 2008 > > > > *Please ensure you delete the link to your author homepage in this > > e-mail if you wish to forward it to your co-authors. > > > > Dear Dr Gillett > > > > Your manuscript entitled "Attribution of polar warming to human > > influence" has now been seen by 2 referees, whose comments are > > attached. Although they find your work of some potential interest, > > referee 1 has raised concerns which in our view are sufficiently > > important to preclude publication of the work in Nature Geoscience, at > > least in its present form. > > > > If, after future work, you can provide compelling evidence for the > > statistical significance of your reported Antarctic temperature trends > > as well as for your attribution of those trends to natural and > > anthropogenic forcing, we will be pleased to consider a revised > > manuscript (unless, of course, something similar has by then been > > accepted at Nature Geoscience or appeared elsewhere). > > > > I should stress, however, that we would be reluctant to trouble our > > referees again unless we thought their comments had been addressed in > > full, and we would understand if you preferred instead to submit your > > manuscript elsewhere. In the meantime we hope that you find our > > referees' comments helpful. > > > > Yours sincerely, > > > > Alicia Newton > > > > Associate Editor > > Nature Geoscience > > > > Nature Publishing Group > > The Macmillan Building > > 4 Crinan Street > > London N1 9XW > > UK > > > > > > PS Please use the link below to submit a revised paper: > > > > > http://mts-ngs.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=A1Q3CGj2A3FlJ1J7A93rUshYh3SdI0gPrnGWsf3wZ > > > > > > > > *This url links to your confidential homepage and associated > > information about manuscripts you may have submitted or be reviewing > > for us. If you wish to forward this e-mail to co-authors, please > > delete this link to your homepage first. > > > > > > +44 20 7833 4000 > > > > Reviewers' comments: > > > > Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): > > > > Summary: > > > > This paper attempts to formally attribute polar warming in both > > hemispheres to anthropogenic forcing. The approach of comparing GCM > > simulations forced by both natural (NAT) and natural + anthropogenic > > (ANT) has been used successfully in other attribution studies, but > > here the authors apply it to the polar regions where very little data > > is available. To isolate the difference between NAT and ANT, they > > employ an innovative detection and attribution technique. > > > > With regards to the Arctic, the model ANT trends appear to be > > reasonable compared to observations (Fig. 2). Due to the strong > > warming in the Arctic it would be hard to quarrel with the results for > > that region. > > > > With regards to the Antarctic, where there is less data and less > > warming than in the Arctic, the results are unconvincing. The authors > > fail to comment on a closely-related recent paper that has first-order > > consequences for their analysis (Monaghan et al. 2008b: 20th century > > Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate > > models. Geophys. Res. Letts., 35, L07502, doi:10.1029/2007GL032630). > > That paper strongly suggests that the GCMs are too sensitive to > > anthropogenic forcing (more details below), and a key assumption of > > this study is that the GCMs are able to reasonably simulate > > anthropogenic influences on surface temperature. With this assumption > > in question, which is confounded by large uncertainty in the observed > > trends from the handful of available stations, and the fact that > > Antarctic warming is only likely to be statistically significant over > > a very small fraction of its surface area (<10%), the result that > > Antarctic warming is due to human influence is > > highly questionable. Detailed comments on the Antarctic analysis are > > given below. > > > > Without a convincing Antarctic analysis, I don't feel that this paper > > is suitable for publication in Nature Geoscience. Given the complexity > > of the topic, the authors might consider revising and submitting this > > important work to a high-profile journal that has room for a much more > > detailed analysis to be presented (Journal of Climate comes to mind). > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > Detailed Comments on the Antarctic analysis: > > > > The authors seem to ignore the fact that there has been no > > statistically significant warming over 90% of Antarctica. For example, > > Figure 3 is misleading, since it does not show statistical > > significance. According to the statistics on Gareth Marshall's > > Antarctic temperature website > (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/), > > and confirmed in Turner et al. (2005), the long-term annual positive > > temperature trend in the Ross Sea at Scott Base is statistically > > insignificant [1958-2007 trend = +0.0172 {plus minus} 0.0230], as is > > the long-term annual positive temperature trend at Casey near 110 E > > [1958-2007 trend =+0.0118 {plus minus} 0.0212]. Therefore, only over > > the Antarctic Peninsula (<5% of Antarctic surface area) and at a > > single station on continental Antarctica (Novolazarevskaya), has > > long-term statistically significant warming been recorded. The spatial > > influence of Novolazarevskaya appears to be very limited, as the > > stations on either side of it have statistically > > insignificant temperature trends near zero. So, the stations with > > statistically significant warming likely represent a very small area > > of Antarctica (<10%), and additionally they are sandwiched within a > > sector that only spans 80 degrees of latitude, from -68 W to 12 E. The > > authors try to rectify this localized warming by noting that "positive > > trends predominate" over most of Antarctica according to the surface > > temperature synthesis of Monaghan et al. (2008). However, Monaghan et > > al. (2008) noted that the positive and negative trends over Antarctica > > were overwhelmingly statistically insignificant apart from the > > Peninsula and a small region around Novalazarevskaya. Chapman and > > Walsh (2007) also performed a gridded Antarctic surface temperature > > reconstruction like Monaghan (over a longer period) and got similar > > results. The point is, how can the authors attribute Antarctic surface > > warming to anthropogenic forcing, when there is so little evidence for > > warming to begin with? Why > > didn't the authors use the more spatially-comprehensive data of > > Chapman and Walsh (2007) or Monaghan et al. (2008) for their analysis, > > even if just for comparison with their station-based results? > > > > Considering the distribution of the Antarctic stations and their > > comparatively short records with high interannual variability, perhaps > > the only place on the continent where one could argue for a robust > > anthropogenic surface warming signal is over the Peninsula. Marshall > > et al. (2006) made a convincing case that summer warming on the east > > side of the Peninsula is due to increased foehn wind events resulting > > from a stronger SAM. In turn, the link between the SAM and > > anthropogenic influences, especially from stratospheric ozone > > depletion, has been established in previous modeling studies, some of > > which the author cites here. Therefore, if one infers from the > > existing literature that the small region of Antarctica that has > > warmed statistically significantly during the past 1/2 century has > > been mainly influenced by the SAM, then the results shown in this > > paper for Antarctica (attributing surface warming to human influence) > > are not particularly groundbreaking. > > > > One key assumption of this study is that the AR4 models are able to > > accurately simulate the impact of anthropogenic forcing on Antarctic > > surface temperatures. However, in a very closely related study that > > was not cited in this analysis (Monaghan et al. 2008b), the authors > > found that 5 AR4 models, two that were included in this study, had > > annual surface temperature trends that were substantially larger than > > observed during the past ~1/2 century. The statistically insignificant > > observed 1960-99 trend from Monaghan et al. (2008b) was 0.06 +/- 2.03 > > K, versus a highly significant GCM ensemble trend of 1.44 K +/- 0.34 > > K; all 5 GCM members had statistically significant positive trends > > (p<0.05). The authors, who also compared their results to the 100+ > > year Antarctic temperature record (1900-1999) of Schneider et al. > > (2006, GRL), found that the models results were much larger than > > observed over the past century as well. They examined why the GCM > > trends were so much more positive than > > observed and found (as the authors note in this paper) that the > > surface temperature sensitivity to the SAM is weaker than observed. > > More importantly, they concluded that in the GCMs, the influence of > > the SAM on surface temperatures appears to be overwhelmed by a > > spurious water vapor feedback. In turn, the water vapor feedback may > > be (wrongly) causing the much larger than observed GCM surface > > temperature trends over Antarctica. Their results indicate that the > > IPCC AR4 GCMs may not yet be able to fully simulate all of the impacts > > of anthropogenic forcing in Antarctica. If correct, their results > > signify that the key assumption of this study is not robust for > > Antarctica. Additionally, their study suggests that the Antarctic > > surface temperature datasets that are representative of surface > > temperature over the entire continent may yield a very different > > comparison with GCM results than is concluded from the comparison with > > the limited dataset used here. > > > > > > > > Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author): > > > > Overall this is an excellent manuscript and an important contribution > > to the detection and attribution debate. > > > > Detection and attribution studies require both models and > > observations, and this is often accomplished by comparing observations > > of actual changes to model-induced trends for models forced > > independently by natural, anthropogenic and combined forcings. This > > was first done, I think (Stott as an author will know for sure), by > > Stott, P., Tett, S., Jones, G., Allen, M., Mitchell, J. & Jenkins, G. > > (2000) Science > > 290, 2133-2137. > > Stott, P. (2003) Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1728. > > using four ensembles of a single model, and very strong evidence for > > global-scale detection and attribution was offered and was a key > > element in IPCC TAR--the authors of this submission might make this > > history a bit more prominent in a minor revision. > > Another study with more limited data coverage arguing that some > > regional skill was still evident in the same set of model runs was > > offered using observations of spring phenology of plants and animals > > as a proxy for spring temperature, and again a clear detection and > > "joint attribution" to anthropogenic causation--though a smaller > > fraction of variance explained--was also found in: > > > > Root, Terry L., Dena MacMynowski, Michael D. Mastrandrea, and Stephen > > H. Schneider, 2005: "Human-modified temperatures induce species > > changes: Joint attribution, " Proceedings of the National Academy of > > Sciences, 102, 21, 7465-7469 > > > > The latter used more sparse observational data and thus finding less > > variance explained than for global scale thermometer data in Stott et > > al papers was not surprising. BUt it did find skill at regional > > scales. > > > > In this submitted paper studying polar regions the authors aggregate > > four models, rather than one, and like earlier studies compare this > > for models driven by N and N&A forcings. Data in the polar regions is > > very sparse--more so than even the phenological ecological data > > sets--nevertheless the authors are admirably able to perform a > > heroic--and to me credible--effort to extract a signal of > > human-induced climate changes in this limited data set. > > > > My only suggestion to the authors is to consider framing their efforts > > in the context of earlier ones like mentioned above issues such as > > data coverage and show the evolution of D&A studies using N and N&A > > forced models and how all such studies at global to regional scales do > > agree that joint attribution is indeed a credible conclusion--and this > > latest study extends that to polar regions. > > > > In short, the authors should be congratulated on a fine addition to > > the literature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System > > NY-610A-NPG&MTS > > > > > > -- > > > **************************************************************************** > > Dr. Nathan Gillett, > > Climatic Research Unit, > > School of Environmental Sciences. > > University of East Anglia. > > Email: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk > > http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~nathan/ > > > > Currently on sabbatical at: > > School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, > > University of Victoria, > > Gordon Head Complex, > > PO Box 3055, > > STN CSC, > > Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, > > Canada. > > Tel: +1 250 472 4013 > > Fax: +1 250 472 4004 > > > > > **************************************************************************** > > > > > > 3454. 2008-08-25 20:32:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:32:56 +1000 (EST) from: Matthew England to: Matthew England Dear colleagues, Please consider submitting an abstract to the "tipping points" session at the upcoming Copenhagen science congress on "Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions", to be held during 10-12 March, 2009. Confirmed invited keynote speakers include Professor Peter Cox, Professor Kerry Cook and Professor Andrew Weaver. This meeting forms a crucial lead-in to the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in late 2009. Details follow below. Also note the abstract deadline is 30th September, 2008. With best wishes, Matthew England and Tim Lenton __________________________________________________________________ Call for Abstracts: Tipping Elements in the Earth System SESSION CHAIRS: Professor Matthew England, University of New South Wales Professor Tim Lenton, University of East Anglia SESSION DESCRIPTION: The global climate system is highly complex and non-linear, with abrupt change a common feature of past climate records. While most climate projections focus on the smooth, predictable aspects of climate change, it is highly likely that key thresholds for large scale, non-linear change, or "tipping points", will be encountered over the coming decades. Critical uncertainties include the amount of forcing required to pass particular tipping points and the severity of the resulting impacts. In this session we invite contributions on the nature, proximity and predictability of tipping points in the Earth's climate system. These may include: abrupt change in the ocean's thermohaline circulation and sea-ice cover, irreversible shrinkage of major ice sheets, rapid shifts in atmospheric systems, and abrupt shifts in some terrestrial and marine ecosystems. ABSTRACT SUBMISSION: The abstract deadline is nominally Monday 1 September 2008 but please note that we will accept abstracts for the tipping points session up until 30 September 2008. See http://climatecongress.ku.dk/call-for-abstracts/ for further details. CONFIRMED SESSION INVITED SPEAKERS: Professor Kerry H. Cook, US Atmospheric tipping points Professor Andrew Weaver, Canada Oceanic tipping points Professor Peter Cox, UK Terrestrial tipping points CONFERENCE INFORMATION: "Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions" 10-12 March 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark. http://climatecongress.ku.dk/ The Danish Government as host of the UN Conference on Climate Change (COP15) to be held in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 has asked the IARU to organise this conference as part of the run-up to the COP15. All findings will be compiled in a book on climate change, and an executive summary with the main findings from the congress will, after agreement with the Danish Government, be handed over to policy makers at the COP15 in Copenhagen at the end of 2009. The conference organisers are expecting several 1000 delegates to attend the meeting. Please circulate this announcement to others who may be interested inparticipating in this session or more broadly in the Copenhagen Congress. ----------------------------------------------------- Professor Matthew England Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) Faculty of Science The University of New South Wales UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052 Australia Telephone: +61-2-9385-7065 Facsimile: +61-2-9385-7123 E-mail: M.England@unsw.edu.au Web: www.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew CCRC Web: www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au 5098. 2008-08-26 16:47:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "JKenyon" , "Myles Allen" , "Tim Barnett" , "Nathan" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Knutti Reto" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Tom Knutson" , "Doug Nychka" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Daithi Stone" , "Stott, Peter" , "Michael Wehner" , "Francis Zwiers" , "Hans von Storch" date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:47:25 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: Re: comments on AR5 experimental design - reply by Aug 28 to: "Gabi Hegerl" , dpierce@ucsd.edu hi gabi..in real haste.....people will use the AR5 data set for impact studies no doubt about it. so what will they find when they jump in....same as we did trying to do the western D&A work with AR4....a very disparate set of numbers. 1.some models don't give the data one would like. 2.some models have only 1 realization...which makes them useless. we found that with multiple realizations one can do statistics with ensemble techniques which give a lot more statistical power. suggesting 10 member ensembles. with less the S/N can be small...e.g. we could not use the GFDL runs very well as they were so noisey and had few (5) realizations) 3. daily data is required. storage is cheap these days so at least daily data for order 100 years is desired. otherwise it is finageled a la the current downscaling methods (save one). 4. the 20th century runs need to go to 2015 as suggested by IDAG. we had to stop at 1999 and lost 8 years we would well like to have studies. 5. some of the variables we needed to compare with satellite obs were largely missing, e.g. clouds information. 6. to Mike's point....just what data is going to be saved? 7. i hope potential users of the data aside from the modeling groups get a say in what is archived. we are to the point now where policy makers want our best guesses as to what will happen in the next 20 years. the people who will make those 'guesses' are most likely not in the major model centers. I invite David Pierce to chip in here as he spend alot of time in the details of the data sets and associated problems. sorry to be so hasty but such is life at the moment. best, tim > Hi IDAG'ies, > > As you probably know, a proposal for the AR5 experiments is being > circulated in the moment, with comments due by September 1. This will > then be presented at the working group for coupled modelling (WGCM) > meeting in Paris, which David Karoly will attend. > Peter Stott and I discussed the draft when I visited last week, and we > drafted a response and suggestions from IDAG (attached) Please let me > know if you are ok with this (if I dont hear back I assume you are), > if you suggest changes and if you want us to add another topic/concern. > > I would need this by next thursday to add it to a comment 'from IDAG' > to be sent in time, and then hopefully David can present this also in > Paris at the WGCM meeting. > > hope you all had a nice summer, and still remember our next meeting in > planning, and your IDAG tasks :)) > > Gabi > > > p.s. we were wondering also about forcing, and if the forcing issue > (how stored, synchronized?) should be added. However, given even some > 'rich' modelling groups worry about getting the mandatory experiments > through we should however not hope that groups will run more than 1 > single forcing set for the 20th century, and arguments against > synchronizing are that its not feasible for many forcings (eg > aerosols) and that we loose quite a bit of information if only a > single, for example, set of solar forcings were used and with this > open the AR5 up for criticism. Ideally, of course, one center would > systematically explore all the forcings - but I am not sure somebody > is planning to do this - in that case, a common set of 20th century > forcings may be an advantage. Based on some EU project, forcings are > synchronized for some European modeling centers - we could draw > attention to that if you feel strongly about this...anyway, I hesitate > to start a discussion about this... > > > -- > 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. > > 2735. 2008-08-27 09:18:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Aug 27 09:18:43 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Winter school on "global warming uncertainty" Jerusalem, Jan to: cru.internal@uea.ac.uk X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f Reply-To: From: "Sarah Colgan" To: "Sarah Colgan" Subject: Winter school on "global warming uncertainty" Jerusalem, Jan 12-16, 2009 Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:45:05 -0400 Organization: EPS, Harvard Unversity X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AckG+03OsUW+srrTR9m+4DZY78LojQAAGlYg X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 1509382, limit: 153600) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1 From: Isaac Held and Eli Tziperman Dear Colleagues, Attached is a poster advertising a winter school on "Reducing the uncertainty in the prediction of global warming" to be held in the Institute of Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, Jan 12-16, 2009. We would be most grateful if you could post the attached poster and forward this to your students and post docs who may be interested. Additional details may be found at [1]http://www.as.huji.ac.il/workshops/global_warming/ Financial help for attending students and post docs is available for covering registration and accommodation expenses. Application deadline is Sept 7 2008. The lecturers in the school will be Brian Mapes; University of Miami Dan Schrag; Harvard Dennis Hartmann; University of Washington Eli Tziperman; Harvard Hezi Gildor; Weizmann Inst. Isaac Held; GFDL, Princeton Jim McWilliams; UCLA Jochem Marotzke; Max Plank Inst, Hamburg Kerry Emanuel; MIT Peter Huybers; Harvard Sylvie Joussaume; LSCE Thank you again, best, Isaac Held Eli Tziperman Hezi Gildor [apologies if you are receiving this announcement more than once] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2229. 2008-08-27 09:33:33 ______________________________________________________ cc: dpierce@ucsd.edu, JKenyon , Myles Allen , Nathan , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Knutti Reto , Toru Nozawa , Tom Knutson , Doug Nychka , Claudia Tebaldi , Ben Santer , Richard Smith , Daithi Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Michael Wehner , Francis Zwiers , Hans von Storch date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:33:33 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: comments on AR5 experimental design - reply by Aug 28 to: tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edu Thanks Tim! We'll have another round later, confirmed by Tim, when we discuss storage and documentation - probably should try before WGCM meeting so that David can present results. the 'near term prediction' is a mip all by itself, so there will be some guidance coming up hopefully! In terms of ensemble size: for the stuff I was involved in, even one run from a model was good since it increased the overall ensemble size for multi model means and estimates of variance - did you analyze models individually? I would be keen to hear from the group: is say a single 20th c run, single natural only run, single ghg run a) useless b) much better than nothing? | vouch for b) for things I was involved in but it would be good to know for which applications its a! Gabi Tim Barnett wrote: > hi gabi..in real haste.....people will use the AR5 data set for impact > studies no doubt about it. so what will they find when they jump > in....same as we did trying to do the western D&A work with AR4....a very > disparate set of numbers. > 1.some models don't give the data one would like. > 2.some models have only 1 realization...which makes them useless. we > found that with multiple realizations one can do statistics with ensemble > techniques which give a lot more statistical power. suggesting 10 member > ensembles. with less the S/N can be small...e.g. we could not use the > GFDL runs very well as they were so noisey and had few (5) realizations) > 3. daily data is required. storage is cheap these days so at least daily > data for order 100 years is desired. otherwise it is finageled a la the > current downscaling methods (save one). > 4. the 20th century runs need to go to 2015 as suggested by IDAG. we had > to stop at 1999 and lost 8 years we would well like to have studies. > 5. some of the variables we needed to compare with satellite obs were > largely missing, e.g. clouds information. > 6. to Mike's point....just what data is going to be saved? > 7. i hope potential users of the data aside from the modeling groups get > a say in what is archived. we are to the point now where policy makers > want our best guesses as to what will happen in the next 20 years. the > people who will make those 'guesses' are most likely not in the major > model centers. > > I invite David Pierce to chip in here as he spend alot of time in the > details of the data sets and associated problems. > > sorry to be so hasty but such is life at the moment. best, tim > > > > >> Hi IDAG'ies, >> >> As you probably know, a proposal for the AR5 experiments is being >> circulated in the moment, with comments due by September 1. This will >> then be presented at the working group for coupled modelling (WGCM) >> meeting in Paris, which David Karoly will attend. >> Peter Stott and I discussed the draft when I visited last week, and we >> drafted a response and suggestions from IDAG (attached) Please let me >> know if you are ok with this (if I dont hear back I assume you are), >> if you suggest changes and if you want us to add another topic/concern. >> >> I would need this by next thursday to add it to a comment 'from IDAG' >> to be sent in time, and then hopefully David can present this also in >> Paris at the WGCM meeting. >> >> hope you all had a nice summer, and still remember our next meeting in >> planning, and your IDAG tasks :)) >> >> Gabi >> >> >> p.s. we were wondering also about forcing, and if the forcing issue >> (how stored, synchronized?) should be added. However, given even some >> 'rich' modelling groups worry about getting the mandatory experiments >> through we should however not hope that groups will run more than 1 >> single forcing set for the 20th century, and arguments against >> synchronizing are that its not feasible for many forcings (eg >> aerosols) and that we loose quite a bit of information if only a >> single, for example, set of solar forcings were used and with this >> open the AR5 up for criticism. Ideally, of course, one center would >> systematically explore all the forcings - but I am not sure somebody >> is planning to do this - in that case, a common set of 20th century >> forcings may be an advantage. Based on some EU project, forcings are >> synchronized for some European modeling centers - we could draw >> attention to that if you feel strongly about this...anyway, I hesitate >> to start a discussion about this... >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > > > -- 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 4530. 2008-08-27 11:58:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Caspar Ammann , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:58:31 -0600 from: Eugene Wahl subject: Re: New Wengen Draft -- including changes to accommodate new to: Phil Jones Hi Phil and Tim: Graphics will be done and sent today. A few small changes in text are required with the new figure version, these will be sent also. They will be outlined in color to draw your attention to them only. Peace, Gene Phil Jones wrote: > > Caspar, > Thanks. > Phil > > At 14:16 27/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote: >> Phil, >> I worked on the figures yesterday and sent them off to Gene for >> double check. Will be one panel each (6), much improved legibility >> and significantly reduced "footprint" in the appearance of the text. >> You should have them before the end of your day. >> Thanks for all your work on this paper! (Tim too!) >> Cheers, >> Caspar >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 27, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Phil Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Caspar, Gene, >>> We're going to send the manuscript back tomorrow. If we get a >>> revised diagram we'll include - otherwise we won't. >>> >>> Have had a few more comments, but nothing substantial. All >>> yours Gene >>> are in, as are those from Gavin, Mike, Juerg and the coral people. >>> There >>> is a completely revised tropical dendro section and Peck finally came >>> through with a section on less-resolved proxies and varves. >>> >>> All in all it reads very well and the recommendations should >>> prove very >>> useful for PAGES. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> At 04:52 26/08/2008, Caspar Ammann wrote: >>>> Hey Gene, >>>> I'll see how I can adjust the figures to fit. >>>> Caspar >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 25, 2008, at 8:30 PM, Eugene Wahl wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Phil and Tim, and Caspar: >>>>> >>>>> Here are my full set of comments on the entirety of section 3, the >>>>> figures relevant to section 3, the authors' address, and abstract >>>>> (none there). I made slight changes in the portion of the text >>>>> already sent last night, sorry that I could not avoid that! >>>>> >>>>> Caspar, please note that I've operated here on the assumption that >>>>> Figure 3 is simplified to one panel for each section, according to >>>>> the suggestions we have talked about, but does contain all 6 >>>>> portions, A-F. >>>>> >>>>> There are two versions: one with just the relevant portions of >>>>> the text, and the full amended text document. The changes noted >>>>> should be identical in each version. >>>>> >>>>> Peace, Gene >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Eugene R. Wahl >>>>> Physical Scientist >>>>> NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch >>>>> 325 Broadway Street >>>>> Boulder, CO 80305 >>>>> 303-497-6297 >>>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >>>>>> Gene, >>>>>> Thanks. Today is a holiday here. We'll all be back in >>>>>> CRU tomorrow. So, we'll begin revising Section 3 then. >>>>>> Have had quite a few comments so far, and all are in. >>>>>> New Figure 3 most appreciated. We must send this off >>>>>> on Thursday or Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hope you're settling in to Boulder life. At least you >>>>>> should be able to contact Caspar more easily! >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> Phil >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------------------------- Original Message >>>>>> ---------------------------- >>>>>> Subject: New Wengen Draft >>>>>> From: Eugene.R.Wahl@noaa.gov >>>>>> Date: Mon, August 25, 2008 2:45 am >>>>>> To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk >>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Phil: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've had to wait to the weekend to get to this, due to several other >>>>>> matters that had to be attended to here at NOAA this week and in >>>>>> relation to a report required by a funder that was due Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've looked over about half of section 3 (up to the start of section >>>>>> 3.4.2), and also the abstract and the authors' address section. >>>>>> Attached are my comments on those sections. I will be getting to the >>>>>> rest of section 3 tonight and tomorrow and will send anything else to >>>>>> you. Everything is done in WORD with "Track Changes" turned on. >>>>>> >>>>>> HIGHLIGHTS >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) My address information has been updated to include my NOAA >>>>>> information, which is now appropriate. The original Alfred >>>>>> information >>>>>> is kept, as also appropriate. I've condensed it all to not >>>>>> change the >>>>>> overall page spacing of the address citations. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2) The addition to the results description of the Riedwyl et al. >>>>>> (2008) paper across pp 10-11 here (near the top of p 56 in the >>>>>> text you >>>>>> sent this week). It is NECESSARY to keep this addition, as the >>>>>> text as >>>>>> it was "overemphasized" the differential quality of the RegEM results >>>>>> in this study. Their graphs 4 and 6 clearly show the results I >>>>>> added, >>>>>> in which RegEM for winter adds quite problematic artifacts at the >>>>>> highest levels of noise added. The white-noise SNR at which this >>>>>> happens (0.25), while low, is not outside of what reality might >>>>>> bring. >>>>>> [NB: I have talked with Juerg about this situation, and he is clearly >>>>>> aware of my sense that RegEM is given too high marks in this >>>>>> context.] >>>>>> >>>>>> 3) I added very brief descriptions how the CFRs actually come up >>>>>> with >>>>>> a reconstruction to the descriptions of them in section 3.2. If you >>>>>> feel these three sentences cannot be included I understand, but I >>>>>> think >>>>>> they are useful for the readers to know HOW the covariance >>>>>> information >>>>>> we are talking about there is actually used. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> TO COME: Caspar and I are working out a much simplified version of >>>>>> Figure 3 (one panel per each section A-F), which I think will be much >>>>>> better than what is there now. We communicated on that Friday and >>>>>> yesterday, and are now close to having a new graphic. I will >>>>>> adapt the >>>>>> references to Figure 3 in section 3.4.2 and in the figure caption >>>>>> in my >>>>>> next message accordingly, which I plan will come either tonight or >>>>>> tomorrow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Peace, and again thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> Gene >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: From Phil Jones New Wengen Draft >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> Here's the revised version of the paper, together with the >>>>>>> responses to the reviewers. >>>>>>> We have told John Matthews, that we will get this back to him by >>>>>>> the beginning >>>>>>> of next week. To us in the UK this means Aug 26/27 as next >>>>>>> Monday >>>>>>> is a national >>>>>>> holiday. So, to those not away at the moment, can you look >>>>>>> through >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> parts and get any comments back to us by the end of this week or >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> weekend? >>>>>>> Can you also look at the references - those in yellow and let >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> know of >>>>>>> any that have come out, or are able to correct those that I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> just look >>>>>>> wrong? >>>>>>> I hope you'll think of this as an improvement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>> Prof. Phil Jones >>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 >> >> > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 859. 2008-08-28 14:55:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:55:23 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: FYI: Arctic ice 'is at tipping point' to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm Arctic ice 'is at tipping point' By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website [cid:p06230905c4dcb1e04d13@[10.240.75.61].1.0] Scientists suggest the Arctic is already at a climatic "tipping point" Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed. The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record. Melting has occurred earlier in the year than usual, meaning that the iced area could become even smaller than last September, the lowest recorded. Researchers say the Arctic is now at a climatic "tipping point". "We could very well be in that quick slide downwards in terms of passing a tipping point," said Mark Serreze, a senior scientist at the Colorado-based NSIDC. "It's tipping now. We're seeing it happen now," he told the Associated Press news agency. Under covered The area covered by ice on 26 August measured 5.26 million sq km (2.03 million sq miles), just below the 2005 low of 5.32 million sq km (2.05 million sq). But the 2005 low came in late September; and with the 2008 graph pointing downwards, the NSIDC team believes last year's record could still be broken even though air temperatures, both in the Arctic and globally, have been lower than last year. Last September, the ice covered just 4.13 million sq km (1.59 million sq miles), the smallest extent seen since satellite imaging began 30 years ago. The 1980 figure was 7.8 million sq km (3 million sq miles). [cid:p06230905c4dcb1e04d13@[10.240.75.61].1.1] The 2008 graph shows a steeper decline than at the same time last year Most of the cover consists of relatively thin ice that formed within a single winter and melts more easily than ice that accumulated over many years. Irrespective of whether the 2007 record falls in the next few weeks, the long-term trend is obvious, scientists said; the ice is declining more sharply than even a decade ago, and the Arctic region will progressively turn to open water in summers. A few years ago, scientists were predicting ice-free Arctic summers by about 2080. Then computer models started projecting earlier dates, around 2030 to 2050; and some researchers now believe it could happen within five years. That will bring economic opportunities, including the chance to drill for oil and gas. Burning that oil and gas would increase levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere still further. The absence of summer ice would have impacts locally and globally. The iconography of polar bears unable to find ice is by now familiar; but other species, including seals, would also face drastic changes to their habitat, as would many Arctic peoples. Globally, the Arctic melt will reinforce warming because open water absorbs more of the Sun's energy than ice does. Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7585645.stm Published: 2008/08/28 10:36:56 GMT © BBC MMVIII Embedded Content: P0B805E9E.png: 00000001,72cf1b1b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: P0B805E9E 1.png: 00000001,72cf1b1c,00000000,00000000 1589. 2008-08-28 18:16:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:16:06 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: Scientific Accomplishment as potential input for CCSP Our Changing to: "Bamzai, Anjuli" Dear PI, I just got back from 2 weeks of Annual Leave, hence the delay in getting this request to you. I'm looking for items in the category Highlights of Recent Research for OCP FY 10. (see email below). If you have something you like to submit as potential input please send across by Sept 20. That way I will make the deadline of Sept 25. You may include figures. The submission should be based on a peer-reviewed publication(s); exciting new results intelligible to a lay audience are particularly encouraged. If the result is somewhat difficult to communicate to the OCP audience, despite its intrinsic value, we're probably best not to send up for consideration. A highlight that includes more than one reference will work fine. I'm attaching the CVC chapter from OCP FY09 so you get an idea of length and level of the write-up. The references are at the end of the chapter. Right for now, you could send a highlight with its corresponding reference(s). The final number is small, 7-10, and will depend on balance of topics, etc. If you have something that falls in one of the other research elements of OCP (e.g. Water Cycle, Atmos Composition), you can indicate that. OCP FY 09 is available at www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009 Thanks for your help. Anjuli ---------------- From: cvc-bounces@usgcrp.gov [mailto:cvc-bounces@usgcrp.gov] On Behalf Of Rick.Rosen Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:21 AM To: cvc@usgcrp.gov Cc: Robert Curran; cvcplus@usgcrp.gov; Mary Glackin Subject: [cvc] Call for OCP FY10 by 25 September Dear CVC IWG, As described in the attached memo from Bob Curran (CCSPO), the CCSP Principals have agreed to a release schedule and format for the FY2010 issue of Our Changing Planet. Our Changing Planet FY2010 will look very much like the FY09 edition (available at ), although efforts to make the document more concise and readable will continue. To meet the goal of releasing OCP FY10 next spring, please submit your contributions to me (with copies to Randy Dole and Anjuli Bamzai) by September 25, 2008, so we can organize your inputs and fill in possible gaps before providing a final package to Bob by the date he requests. We seek inputs from you in two categories: Highlights of Recent Research, and Highlights of Plans for FY2010. In each case, please provide a paragraph of no more than 3-4 sentences describing the highlight, following the attached guidance from Bob (note, in particular, his additional guidance on style). Because our chapter in OCP FY 09 covered work published primarily in 2007, your highlights of recent research should focus on papers published in the peer-reviewed literature during 2008 or in press for 2009. Please note that only papers published, or in press, in the refereed literature should be included in your submission. Highlights reporting on our CCSP priorities dealing with integrated Earth system analysis or abrupt change and other highlights reflecting interagency collaborations are especially welcome and will be given priority if we receive more than the 7-10 highlights allowed in each category for our chapter. The research highlights selected for our chapter in OCP FY10 will help form the basis for introductory text to be drafted by CCSPO on the progress made toward achieving the CCSP Goals. It would be helpful, therefore, if you were to identify which of the Goals in the CCSP Strategic Plan your research highlight best aligns with. Similarly, please cite the specific "Questions" from the Strategic Plan that each of your submitted highlights of plans for FY2010 is intended to address. Finally, although the number of figures will again be limited to two per chapter, we welcome your submitting relevant graphics along with your highlights. At this stage, a low-resolution figure is acceptable, but if your graphic is selected for inclusion in the final OCP, please be prepared to provide a high-resolution version. As you are aware, each year's edition of Our Changing Planet receives wide circulation, both within government and beyond. With the transition in administration taking place next January, progress and plans in our field may well be of particular interest. Your help in making OCP for FY2010 as compelling as possible will, therefore, help advance the science you promote in your agencies and across the CCSP as a whole. Randy, Anjuli, and I look forward to receiving your inputs by September 25. Sincerely, Rick CVC IWG coordinator -- Richard D. Rosen, Ph.D. Senior Advisor for Climate Research NOAA Climate Program Office SSMC3, Room 12872 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-734-1250 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ocp2009-hi-clivar.pdf" 805. 2008-08-29 13:47:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: mann@psu.edu, "Folland, Chris" , Thomas R Karl , Ben Santer , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:47:22 -0600 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: paper on smoothing to: Curtis Covey No Kevin Curtis Covey wrote: > Very interesting. Does it mean that the apparent leveling-off of > global mean surface temperature since the turn of the century is due > to "artificial suppression of trends near the time series boundaries" ? > > - Curt > > Michael Mann wrote: >> dear all, >> >> attached is a paper of mine (GRL) on time series smoothing that might >> be of interest. >> >> best regards, >> >> mike >> -- **************** 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 1878. 2008-08-29 15:53:41 ______________________________________________________ cc: Kevin Trenberth , Curtis Covey , mann@psu.edu, "Folland, Chris" , Ben Santer , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:53:41 -0400 from: Michael Mann subject: Re: paper on smoothing to: "Thomas.R.Karl" yeah, its statistically real, but an artifact almost certainly of natural variability. As Josh Willis nicely pointed out in a recent interview, anyone citing this as a reason to doubt the reality of anthropogenic climate change is like a vegas roller thinking he can beat the system because he's on a momentary winning streak... m Thomas.R.Karl wrote: > Curt, > > At this point the leveling off is more of a Blog myth than any change > point scientific analysis > > Tom > Kevin Trenberth said the following on 8/29/2008 3:47 PM: >> No >> Kevin >> >> Curtis Covey wrote: >>> Very interesting. Does it mean that the apparent leveling-off of >>> global mean surface temperature since the turn of the century is due >>> to "artificial suppression of trends near the time series boundaries" ? >>> >>> - Curt >>> >>> Michael Mann wrote: >>>> dear all, >>>> >>>> attached is a paper of mine (GRL) on time series smoothing that >>>> might be of interest. >>>> >>>> best regards, >>>> >>>> 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 website: http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/faculty/mann.htm "Dire Predictions" book site: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/academic/product/0,3110,0136044352,00.html 1001. 2008-08-29 17:35:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:35:23 +0100 from: "Douglas Maraun" subject: Error found :-) :-( to: "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" Hi Tim, I found the error. Could be important, so here it is: I told you that I replaced the reading in from a file just by the standard set of the parameters (esp for MAGRUN.CFG). Later in the program, where the loops for the ensemble start, these are overwritten, first by the values set in the loops, but also by a set of standard parameters, which are set just before the climate sensitivity loop. First of all, some of these standard parameters are just altered some lines down (TE, XKLO,XKNS), so they are actually never used. Anyway, this is not important. But: Apparently, before these loops, the data read in from the MAGRUN.CFG are already used to do some calculations. The error occured, because at that point I commented these values out where they used to be read from MAGRUN.CFG, because they were set later anyway. Without commenting them out, there is no difference. That means, a part of the program (some initialisation) runs with the parameters from MAGRUN.CFG, the main integration with the parameters set later in the loops. Could this be important for the results? I mean, it causes a quite big difference in the results, so it should be important... Quite scary, the whole program... Anyway, the program runs now, and I can read in data from a new parameter file which R will produce for every iteration. Each one should take less than a second, so we might end up with reasonable times (less than a week on a PC) even for the specificity study for different observational noise. Cheers and have a good weekend! Douglas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Douglas Maraun Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia +44 1603 59 3857 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas 4191. 2008-09-01 13:48:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 1 13:48:34 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: manuscript status to: "Matthews J.A." John on receiving this I immediately told Ms Oliver to reassign it - because of possible oconflict of issue. Keith At 10:22 01/09/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith Please would you take action on Loehle's papr (No. 23 on the on-line system). Please note also that the first paper submitted on line (No. 1 on the system), amongst others, requires urgent action too. John A. Matthews Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography Editor of The Holocene Department of Geography School of the Environment and Society University of Wales Swansea SWANSEA SA2 8PP Phone: +44 (0)1792 295230/295563/295880 Fax: +44 (0)1792 295955 E-mail: [1]J.A.Matthews@Swansea.ac.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Craigloehl@aol.com [[2]mailto:Craigloehl@aol.com] Sent: 29 August 2008 17:39 To: Oliver G.M. Subject: manuscript status HOL-08-0023 - MILLENNIAL-SCALE PERIODICITY IN RECENT TEMPERATURE RECORDS Dear Ms. Oliver: Could you please check on the status of my paper? It has been 3 months since I sent it in. Thanks. Craig Loehle 552 S. Washington St. #224 Naperville, IL 60564 USA 630-579-1190 This message is from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). To be removed from NCASI distribution lists, send your request to [3]publications@ncasi.org. © 2008 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. All rights reserved. P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle, North Carolina 27709 U.S.A. (919) 941-6400 ___________________________________________________________________________________ It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal [4]here. -- 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/ 495. 2008-09-01 16:40:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Stott , David Pierce , Knutti Reto , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , Tim Barnett , Hans von Storch , ClaudiaTebaldi , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Toru Nozawa , Ben Santer , Daithi Stone , Richard Smith , Nathan Gillett , Michael Wehner , Doug Nychka , Xuebin Zhang , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , Chris Miller , Tom Knutson date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 16:40:40 +0100 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: RE: priority list for MIP to: Myles Allen HI everybody, sounds great! I had some amplified solar forcing runs with HadCM3 in a proposal for the last 500 yrs, and the reviewers HATED that - so not sure it will work for convincing sceptical people... I agree that some more simulations would be highly useful, particularly also if going beyond 2000...so should be listed but along with land use maybe? Gabi Quoting Myles Allen : > Dear Peter, > > Thanks for this. This should definitely be done for AR5: recent papers > such as Lockwood and Frolich suggest that data since 2000 should be very > informative with regard to the likelihood of a strong solar > amplification, so it's a bit embarrassing that most direct simulations > of solar influence on climate only run up to 2000 (if they even make it > that far). > > Myles > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Stott [mailto:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk] > Sent: 01 September 2008 16:27 > To: Myles Allen > Cc: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce; Knutti Reto; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; > Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; > Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; > Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; > Tom Knutson > Subject: RE: priority list for MIP > > Re the solar forcing we were discussing this very issue over lunch at > the Met Office last week. To my knowledge, our 2003 detection study "Do > models underestimate the solar contribution to recent climate change", > J. Climate, 2003, has not been updated since then, even though, because > of degeneracy between the GHG and solar response, the conclusions of > that paper were heavily caveated (our "perfect model" analyses indicated > we might have been attributing too much warming to solar forcing). > > What we need to update this study are model simulations with large solar > forcing and ideally model studies that include a representation of uv on > stratospheric ozone and we could I suppose have a go at trying to > simulate the effect of cosmic rays in a model in some highly simplified > way. > It seems to me that this is something for a few interested groups to do > rather than requesting everyone to do, since we could gain a lot of > value from simulations with a single model or just a few models. > > Peter > > On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 15:27 +0100, Myles Allen wrote: >> Dear Gabi, >> >> That sequence looks good to me. It might be worth emphasizing to the >> modelers that we want as many takes as possible on the question of how >> much warming can be attributed to past anthropogenic greenhouse > forcing, >> so the GHG-only runs are interesting in their own right, not just for >> D&A. >> >> What solar forcing is being recommended (apologies if the answer to > this >> is in an earlier e-mail)? The one question it would be hard to answer >> with that lot is Svensmark's: how much warming can be attributed to a >> (possibly amplified) solar forcing? Are we anticipating that this >> question will have become completely uninteresting by 2013? >> >> Myles >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk] >> Sent: 01 September 2008 14:55 >> To: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce >> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; >> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David > Karoly; >> Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; >> Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris > Miller; >> Tom Knutson >> Subject: priority list for MIP >> >> Hi IDAG people, I forwarded the comments to Karl. >> >> One thing that Jerry and Karl would find helpful is a priority list >> from us about runs important for detection and attribution. >> if I write this (in a hurry so dont take terribly serious) I would get >> the following priorities: >> 0. control simulation longer than 150 yrs >> 1. 1 All forcing 20th century simulation (1860-2015, ideally >> even earlier start) >> 2. two more 20th century simulations particularly if control >> shorter than 500 yrs >> 3. 1 Natural only forcing 20th century simulation >> 4. 1 Ghg only simulation >> 5. 2 more natural only simulations >> 6. 2 more ghg only simulations >> from here on its a bit of a tossup >> 7. 1-3 land use change simulation >> 8. 1-1 volcano simulation >> >> what do you think - how would you splice? I tend to favor the >> simualtion that is closest >> to whats actually happening if having an opion of say ALLminus a >> forcing or a forcing >> alone. >> >> ALso, as soon as Karl has the suggested list of variables to be saved > >> I will circulate for feedback! >> >> Gabi >> >> Quoting Gabi Hegerl : >> >> >> >> -- >> Gabriele Hegerl >> School of GeoSciences >> University of Edinburgh >> http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=1613 >> > > -- 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. 1138. 2008-09-02 08:14:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 2 08:14:17 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing to: t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk Tom did we ever do this? Keith Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:39:42 -0500 (EST) From: pcoxon@tcd.ie To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing X-Errors-To: C.J.Caseldine@exeter.ac.uk Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com Dear Keith Thank you for agreeing to review this paper JQS-08-0020 entitled "Summer temperature variations in Lapland during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age relative to natural instability of thermohaline circulation" submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science. I have attached a PDF file of the author's manuscript. Please could you perform your review and return your comments and recommendation to me at your earliest convenience. let me know if there is a problem with the pdf Sincerely, Pete Coxon Journal of Quaternary Science ========================== Sign up for e-mail alerts to Journal of Quaternary Science and receive the latest tables of contents immediately upon publication [1]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs ========================== -- 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/ 2528. 2008-09-02 09:27:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 2 09:27:49 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Fwd: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing to: Keith Briffa Keith, Is exactly the same paper. Attached is the very brief review I did last time. My notes (I can dig them out) are in the office Tom At 08:14 02/09/2008, you wrote: Tom did we ever do this? Keith Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 10:39:42 -0500 (EST) From: pcoxon@tcd.ie To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: JQS-08-0020 - reviewing X-Errors-To: C.J.Caseldine@exeter.ac.uk Sender: onbehalfof@scholarone.com Dear Keith Thank you for agreeing to review this paper JQS-08-0020 entitled "Summer temperature variations in Lapland during the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age relative to natural instability of thermohaline circulation" submitted to the Journal of Quaternary Science. I have attached a PDF file of the author's manuscript. Please could you perform your review and return your comments and recommendation to me at your earliest convenience. let me know if there is a problem with the pdf Sincerely, Pete Coxon Journal of Quaternary Science ========================== Sign up for e-mail alerts to Journal of Quaternary Science and receive the latest tables of contents immediately upon publication [1]http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/jqs ========================== -- 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/ 4813. 2008-09-02 10:53:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof" , "Tim Osborn" , "Jones Philip Prof" , "Palmer Dave Mr" date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:53:02 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" > Michael, What a waste of time. I am away this week. I will look when I get back next week. I think the only direct exchange is an email that Keith sent. Cheers Phil > Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, > > Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to any > personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so > and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. > Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. > > We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that > included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the > Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me > copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr > Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other > which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to > other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators > worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any > replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any > exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. > > We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to > call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that > we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to > under the Act. > > Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on > leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up > on him about progress after that date. > > 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 > > > > > 2062. 2008-09-03 17:08:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: philtransb date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:08:08 +0100 from: philtransb subject: RE: Briffa et al (Phil Trans B 2008) to: Keith Briffa Dear Keith, As I do not have the contact details of your co-authors, may I ask that you, as lead author, request the required data? Again, the data required is below: Would you therefore please provide me with either a URL or the complete tree ring measurement data sets in digital form for all data sets discussed in Briffa et al 2008, including Yamal, Tornetrask, Taymyr, Bolshoi Avam and Finnish Lapland, together with digital versions of the individual reconstructions referred to in Briffa et al 2008, including, without limitation, the reconstructions for each of the above sites and the composite regional reconstructions referred to in the article. This information is necessary to "verify the conclusion of the article". Our policy states that "As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data necessary to verify the conclusion of the article". Therefore, somehow we need to make this data available. Many thanks, Claire Claire Rawlinson Commissioning Editor Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B) Tel: +44 (0)207 451 2602 Fax: +44 (0)20 7976 1837 Email: Claire.Rawlinson@royalsociety.org Phil Trans B website: http://publishing.royalsociety.org/philtransb Royal Society Publishing - informing the science of the future ******************** -----Original Message----- From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 04 August 2008 15:57 To: philtransb Subject: RE: Briffa et al (Phil Trans B 2008) Claire see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/melvin/PhilTrans2008/ I am not at liberty to release the raw tree-ring measurement data underlying these results as these are the property of the my other co authors (and used with permission here) and requests for these should be addressed directly to them. cheers Keith At 14:50 04/08/2008, you wrote: >Dear Professor Briffa, > >I am writing with regard to the email received below. Please can you >let me know where this data has been made available? > >Sincerely, > >Claire Rawlinson >Publishing Editor >Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (Proc. R. Soc. B) >Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological >Sciences (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B) > >Tel: +44 (0)207 451 2602 >Fax: +44 (0)20 7976 1837 >Email: >Claire.Rawlinson@royalsociety.org > >Proceedings B website: >http://publishing.royalsociety.org/procee dingsb >Phil Trans B website: >http://publishing.royalsociety.org/philtr ansb > >Royal Society Publishing - informing the science of the future >******************** > >From: Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >Sent: 18 July 2008 02:36 >To: philtransb >Cc: Keith Briffa >Subject: Briffa et al (Phil Trans B 2008) > >Dear Sirs, >Your policy on data availability as stated >at: >http://publishing.royal society.org/index.cfm?page=1684#question10 >states: >As a condition of acceptance authors agree to honour any reasonable >request by other researchers for materials, methods, or data >necessary to verify the conclusion of the article. > >Supplementary data up to 10Mb is placed on the Society's website >free of charge and is publicly accessible. Large datasets must be >deposited in a recognised public domain database by the author prior >to submission. The accession number should be provided for inclusion >in the published article. > >Briffa et al failed to comply with your requirement that "large >datasets must be deposited in a recognised public domain database by >the author prior to submission" and your editorial staff and >reviewers failed to ensure that the article included an accession >number for such deposit. > >In particular, Briffa et al. 2008 discussed the following tree ring >measurement data sets which have not been archived at the >International Tree Ring Data Bank or other public domain data base >(other than a small subset of the Tornetrask data set.) Would you >therefore please provide me with either a URL or the complete tree >ring measurement data sets in digital form for all data sets >discussed in Briffa et al 2008, including Yamal, Tornetrask, Taymyr, >Bolshoi Avam and Finnish Lapland, together with digital versions of >the individual reconstuctions referred to in Briffa et al 2008, >including, without limitation, the reconstructions for each of the >above sites and the composite regional reconstructions referred to >in the article. This informaiton is necessary to "verify the >conclusion of the article". > >Yours truly, >Stephen McIntyre > > > > >****************************************************************************** > >This email is sent on behalf of The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House >Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG, United Kingdom. > >You should carry out your own virus check before opening any >attachment. The Royal Society accepts no liability for any loss or >damage which may be caused by software viruses or interception or >interruption of this email. > >The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the >confidential use of the named recipient(s) only. They may be legally >privileged and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any >person without our express written consent. If you are not an >addressee (or you have received this mail in error) please notify us >immediately by email to: >ithelpdesk@royalsociety.org > > Registered charity no. 207043 "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> > -- 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/ ****************************************************************************** This email is sent on behalf of The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG, United Kingdom. You should carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. The Royal Society accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by software viruses or interception or interruption of this email. The contents of this email and any attachments are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient(s) only. They may be legally privileged and should not be communicated to or relied upon by any person without our express written consent. If you are not an addressee (or you have received this mail in error) please notify us immediately by email to: [1]ithelpdesk@royalsociety.org Registered charity no. 207043 2747. 2008-09-04 13:06:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 13:06:31 +0100 from: "Michael Duffy" subject: BBC Documentary to: Hi Phil, Mike Duffy here from the BBC factual programming department. I wonder if you can help me. We're researching a documentary about snow which will include the history of British winters. I've spoke with Brian Fagan, author of the Little Ice Age as well as Trevor in your department, who suggested I contacted you with my query. We'd love to do a bit about the Little Ice Age, taking in its causes and how it affected Britain socially and economically. I realise you're abroad but would be most grateful if you could contact me as sono as possible on 0141 422 6886/ 07725 623668 for a quick chat. Cheers, Mike Duffy. Researcher BBC Scotland. [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. 389. 2008-09-05 20:01:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 20:01:50 +0100 from: "Rachel Warren" subject: referees to: "Tim Osborn" , "Rita Yu" Tim (cc Rita) We have to suggest 3-5 suitable referees. I was thinking of Steve Schneider (busy but he would really understand the significance of the work in the policy context); Nigel Arnell Rob Wilby We could also try Hayley Fowler (we reference her a lot, though of course we may induce her to do matching calcualtions!); Any other suggestions? Thanks Rachel -- Dr Rachel Warren Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre Zuckermann Institute University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Telephone 01603 593912 Fax 01603 593901 E-mail r.warren@uea.ac.uk 2638. 2008-09-08 10:40:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 8 10:40:58 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: request extension for NERC final report to: Keith Briffa Please can we formally request a 2-month extension to the deadline for submission of the final report of our NERC (Rapid Climate Change) grant NER/T/S/2002/00440 "Quantitative applications of high-resolution late Holocene proxy data sets: estimating climate sensitivity and thermohaline circulation influences". The reason/justification for this request is that it would allow us to complete another suite of energy balance model simulations that we are currently undertaking in order to better apply a maximum likelihood approach for constraining climate model parameters based on comparison with pseudo-proxy and actual temperature reconstructions. We undertook related model simulations during spring 2008 but have subsequently decided that the analysis will benefit from additional model simulations. Tim Osborn and myself are currently making these runs but we envisage another month or so after which time we will need to analyse the results. We are very anxious to incorporate at least preliminary findings of these runs in the final project report. It is for this reason that we are requesting a 2-month extension. 1959. 2008-09-08 12:27:57 ______________________________________________________ cc: mas@noc.soton.ac.uk ,"Janice Darch" date: Mon Sep 8 12:27:57 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: NERC/T/S/2002/0040 - extension request re. final report to: snbl@nerc.ac.uk To Sasha Leigh Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1EU Dear Sasha following our initial phone conversation this morning, I am now following up with a more formal request for an extension - see below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Please can we formally request a 2-month extension to the deadline for submission of the final report of our NERC (Rapid Climate Change) grant NER/T/S/2002/00440 "Quantitative applications of high-resolution late Holocene proxy data sets: estimating climate sensitivity and thermohaline circulation influences". The report submission deadline is 29th September 2008. We would like to request an extension of this deadline until the last day of November 2008. The reason/justification for this request is that it would allow us to complete another suite of energy balance model simulations that we are currently undertaking in order to better apply a maximum likelihood approach for constraining climate model parameters based on comparison with pseudo-proxy and actual temperature reconstructions. We undertook related model simulations during spring 2008 but have subsequently decided that the analysis will benefit from additional model simulations. Tim Osborn and myself are currently making these runs but we envisage another month or so after which time we will need to analyse the results. We are very anxious to incorporate at least preliminary findings of these runs in the final project report. It is for this reason that we are requesting a 2-month extension. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ I am also cc'ing this request to Dr. Meric Srokosz for information (I understand that he is prepared to sanction this request) and Dr. Janice Darch (our Research Administrator - who will forward it to the relevant parties in the UEA Research Office). with thanks Keith -- 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/ 4437. 2008-09-09 09:52:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:52:14 +0100 from: "Janet Rogers" subject: Re: NERC/T/S/2002/0040 - extension request re. final report to: Dear Professor Briffa Sasha forwarded you request over to me. I can confirm that the due date for you Final report has been amended, and is now due on 29/11/2008. I have also amended to due date of the FES at the same time. Best wishes Jan Rogers Mrs Jan Rogers Team Leader Research Grants Team NERC Polaris House North Star Ave Swindon Wilts SN2 1EU Tel: 01793 411574 Fax 01793 411545 E-Mail: jrog@nerc.ac.uk >>> Keith Briffa 08/09/2008 12:27 >>> To Sasha Leigh Natural Environment Research Council Polaris House North Star Avenue Swindon SN2 1EU Dear Sasha following our initial phone conversation this morning, I am now following up with a more formal request for an extension - see below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please can we formally request a 2-month extension to the deadline for submission of the final report of our NERC (Rapid Climate Change) grant NER/T/S/2002/00440 "Quantitative applications of high-resolution late Holocene proxy data sets: estimating climate sensitivity and thermohaline circulation influences". The report submission deadline is 29th September 2008. We would like to request an extension of this deadline until the last day of November 2008. The reason/justification for this request is that it would allow us to complete another suite of energy balance model simulations that we are currently undertaking in order to better apply a maximum likelihood approach for constraining climate model parameters based on comparison with pseudo-proxy and actual temperature reconstructions. We undertook related model simulations during spring 2008 but have subsequently decided that the analysis will benefit from additional model simulations. Tim Osborn and myself are currently making these runs but we envisage another month or so after which time we will need to analyse the results. We are very anxious to incorporate at least preliminary findings of these runs in the final project report. It is for this reason that we are requesting a 2-month extension. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am also cc'ing this request to Dr. Meric Srokosz for information (I understand that he is prepared to sanction this request) and Dr. Janice Darch (our Research Administrator - who will forward it to the relevant parties in the UEA Research Office). with thanks Keith -- 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/ -- 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. 1494. 2008-09-09 10:49:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 10:49:26 +0100 from: "O'Neill Saffron Dr \(ENV\)" subject: we're online at JAE early view to: "Watkinson Andrew Prof \(ENV\)" , "Hulme Michael Prof \(ENV\)" , "Lorenzoni Irene Dr \(ENV\)" , "Tim Osborn" Hello all Just to let you know the polar bear paper is available on the Journal of Applied Ecology earlyview: [1]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121398651/PDFSTART . I'm sure this isn't quite as exciting for you all as for me, as it's my first paper!! The JAE want to run some publicity stuff on the paper when it comes out (whether online or in print I'm not sure). I'll keep you updated. Saffron ___________________________________ MSc Climate Change Tutor Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ Research Fellow Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research w: [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~saffron/ e: [3]s.o-neill@uea.ac.uk t: +44 (0)1603 59 3044 ____________________________________ 3597. 2008-09-10 10:29:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: Dáithí Stone , "Myles Allen" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Gabi Hegerl" , "David Pierce" , "Knutti Reto" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "ClaudiaTebaldi" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Richard Smith" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Doug Nychka" , "Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , "Chris Miller" , "Tom Knutson" date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT) from: "Tim Barnett" subject: RE: priority list for MIP to: "Stott, Peter" hi peter....just the kind of experiences we had w/ ocean D&A. think this figures into just how they construct the experiments. Gabi....hope you can convey these real life experiences to the exp planners. best, tim > I have a paper on d+a of Atlantic salinity changes in the works where we > had to remove ocean drifts for which we needed to have parallel segments > of the control which means several centuries of control if you want a 4 > member forced ensemble and you want to try to separate them out enough > that they might sample different phases of the AMO. > > Peter > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dr. Peter Stott > Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter. EX1 3PB, UK > Tel +44(0)1392 886646 Fax +44(0)1392885681 > Email: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dáithí Stone [mailto:stoned@atm.ox.ac.uk] > Sent: 09 September 2008 11:29 > To: Myles Allen > Cc: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce; Knutti Reto; > Stott, Peter; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; > David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; > Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris > Miller; Tom Knutson > Subject: RE: priority list for MIP > > I think about 1/3 of the models submitted to CMIP3 had a visible linear > drift over the length of their pre-industrial control simulation. So for > CMIP5 I think we still need a control sufficiently long to check this. > DA > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Myles Allen wrote: > >> Dear Francis, >> >> I've always argued for large ensembles rather than long controls, but >> a practical problem we have found in the very large ensembles that we >> generate in climateprediction.net is the difficulty of telling how far >> apart in time two initial conditions have to be to "count" as >> independent. We've seen epochs of many decades duration in which the >> behavior of long control runs, even if they are nominally drift-free, >> changes quite substantially from epoch to epoch. I'd be inclined to >> vote for a minimum 200-year control (and ideally a lot longer) just to >> provide a representative set of initial conditions for any subsequent >> ensemble. >> >> Myles >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Zwiers,Francis [Ontario] [mailto:francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca] >> Sent: 07 September 2008 15:04 >> To: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce >> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Tim Barnett; Hans von >> Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben >> Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; >> Doug Nychka; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom >> Knutson >> Subject: RE: priority list for MIP >> >> Hi all, sorry to chime in late ... if I had to chose between a long >> control run or multi-run ensembles with a given model, I think I would >> chose the latter in almost all cases (assuming that modelling groups >> have gotten drift more or less under control) and then use >> inter-simulation differences to estimate internal variability. >> >> 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 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gabi Hegerl [mailto:Gabi.Hegerl@ed.ac.uk] >> Sent: September 1, 2008 9:55 AM >> To: Gabi Hegerl; David Pierce >> Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; >> Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; ClaudiaTebaldi; Phil Jones; David >> Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan >> Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Zhang,Xuebin [Ontario]; Bamzai, >> Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson >> Subject: priority list for MIP >> >> Hi IDAG people, I forwarded the comments to Karl. >> >> One thing that Jerry and Karl would find helpful is a priority list >> from us about runs important for detection and attribution. >> if I write this (in a hurry so dont take terribly serious) I would get >> the following priorities: >> 0. control simulation longer than 150 yrs >> 1. 1 All forcing 20th century simulation (1860-2015, ideally >> even earlier start) >> 2. two more 20th century simulations particularly if control >> shorter than 500 yrs >> 3. 1 Natural only forcing 20th century simulation >> 4. 1 Ghg only simulation >> 5. 2 more natural only simulations >> 6. 2 more ghg only simulations >> from here on its a bit of a tossup >> 7. 1-3 land use change simulation >> 8. 1-1 volcano simulation >> >> what do you think - how would you splice? I tend to favor the >> simualtion that is closest to whats actually happening if having an >> opion of say ALLminus a forcing or a forcing alone. >> >> ALso, as soon as Karl has the suggested list of variables to be saved >> I will circulate for feedback! >> >> Gabi >> >> Quoting Gabi Hegerl : >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, U.K. > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, U.K. > MAIL: DĂ¡ithĂ­ 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/ > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > 334. 2008-09-11 09:23:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 09:23:13 +0100 from: Rob Allan subject: Reference for Gail if needed to: Phil Jones Phil, Not sure if you were aware that with Dennis Wheeler and Martin Juckes from BADC, we've managed to get a Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Digitisation Programme: Enriching Digital Resources grant for a project entitled ‘UK Colonial registers and Royal Naval Logbooks: Making the past available for the future.’? Anyway, its worth about £183K over two financial years and starts in October. It will employ two people, Catharine Ward (Post Doctoral Research Assistant) and Gail (Research Assistant) through Sunderland Uni, but we'll still have to go through the usual loops in appointing them. Would you be happy to give Gail a reference if it is asked for? Her role will be very much as she's done for EMULATE and ACRE now anyway - in this case digitising (also imaging), checking and archiving weather observations from UK island colonial stations - the 4/6 lighthouses in the Carribean bound in the ship logbooks, St Helena and Maldern and any other Pacific islands we can fit in from the MO Archives back to the 1850s/60s or so. Thanks in advance. Hoping all goes well. Cheers, Rob. PS: Philip and I are working on the new ACRE WWW site under Google - one can get at it via the redirection from the old site. -- Dr Rob Allan, ACRE Project Manager, Climate Monitoring and Attribution Group, Met Office Hadley Centre. E-mail: rob.allan@metoffice.gov.uk ACRE WWW Page: http://www.met-acre.org/ Alternative E-mail: allarob@googlemail.com Phone: +44 (0)1392 886904 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 International phone: +44 1392 886552 Met Office climate change predictions can now be viewed on Google Earth http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/google/ Address: Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom 2491. 2008-09-11 14:22:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:22:02 +0200 from: Raimund Muscheler subject: Re: Lund university climate workshop to: Philip Jones Dear Phil, that's a pity. Thank you for the quick reply. Best wishes, Raimund > Raimond, > I cannot make the Nov 19-20 date. I have to be in the UK > for a press conference about some work we have been doing > for a UK govt department. > > Cheers > Phil > > >On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Raimund Muscheler wrote: > >> >>Dear Phil Jones, >> >>let me first introduce myself. I am senior >>research assistant at the Geology department at >>Lund university and together with Svante Björck >>I am organizing a workshop with the title: >>"Human influence on climate - is it beyond any >>doubt?". I am working on the solar influence >>on climate in the past (and I know that this is >>a popular topic for climate sceptics). >> >>I am writing you because we would like to >>invite you to come to Lund for this workshop >>about our knowledge of the climate system (Nov >>19-20). We would pay for your travel and >>accommodation. >> >>A bit about the background: The rector of Lund >>university started a climate initiative with >>the goals to increase the knowledge about the >>causes for climate change and how to mitigate >>climate change. Within this initiative we got >>funding for this workshop. We hope for an open >>discussion about certainties and uncertainties >>in climate research during this workshop. >> >>It is a popular statement by climate sceptics >>that the present climate is not particularly >>special and it would be great if you, as a >>leading expert in this field, could give a talk >>about climate in the past and how our present >>climate relates to the last 1000 years. >> >>There will be another workshop: "Carbon cycling >>and its interactions with the climate system" >>just before our workshop. If you are interested >>you could come two days earlier and attend this >>one, too. >> >>What do you think? Do you have time and do you >>think that this could be interesting for you? >>We would be very happy if you could come. >> >>Best wishes, >>Raimund Muscheler >>-- >> >>------------------------------------- >> >>Dr. Raimund Muscheler >>GeoBiosphere Science Centre >>Quaternary Sciences >>Lund University >>Sölvegatan 12 >>SE-22362 Lund >>Sweden >>Tel: +46 46 222 0454 >>Fax: +46 46 222 4830 >>E-mail: Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se -- ------------------------------------- Dr. Raimund Muscheler GeoBiosphere Science Centre Quaternary Sciences Lund University Sölvegatan 12 SE-22362 Lund Sweden Tel: +46 46 222 0454 Fax: +46 46 222 4830 E-mail: Raimund.Muscheler@geol.lu.se 575. 2008-09-16 12:26:29 ______________________________________________________ cc: david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk, Phil Jones , tomas@irinnews.org date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:26:29 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Fwd: raw data sets to: Omar Baddour Dear Tomas & Omar, The request is not as simple as it seems. Mean global temperature is widely available, e.g.: [1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html or more generally and with other links [2]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html Extremes are another matter. To determine extremes one needs at least daily data. Many countries are reluctant to provide long-term daily data. What data daily data my institution has been able to acquire can be gotten from: [3]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/ as they are all in our Global Historical Climatology Network - Daily. To get a better understanding of changes in extremes a great deal of work has been done around the world holding workshops, some that Omar has been key to making happen, some coordinated by an Expert Team that Phil and David are both members. I'll attach a paper about these workshops that I wasn't going to release broadly for a few more days as it won't be published until later this week or so. Another relevant paper on Extremes is available from [4]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadex/HadEX_paper.pdf. The paper doesn't include the results of recent workshops such as one in Brazzaville, Congo. Many of the countries would not release their daily data but did agree to release indices of extremes that describe how extremes are changing. These indices can be obtained from the Expert Team's web site: [5]http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDI/ and I believe also in the gridded form in the HadEx extremes data set ([6]http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadex/). This would probably be easiest but there might be additional information for some parts of the world available via GHCN daily or the ET indices from recent workshops that might be helpful to you. For many results, though, you might want to check IPCC out first to see what figures or analyses it presents. Good luck. Regards, Tom Peterson Omar Baddour said the following on 9/16/2008 11:13 AM: Dear David, Phil and Tom OCHA is a UN humanitarian organisation ( [7]http://ochaonline.un.org/AboutOCHA/tabid/1076/Default.aspx) . They are actively involved in emergency responses during natural hazards in particular those due to climate extreme events. OCHA has send to WMO a request for several type of data sets which I presume that your institutions could make access to, if not all at least part of it . Would you be able to help in this request. Should be there a need for an official letter from WMO, please just let me know. Many thanks Omar _______________________________________________________________________________ Subject: raw data sets From: Tomas de Mul [8] Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:46:54 +0200 To: [9]"'obaddour@wmo.int'" [10] To: [11]"'obaddour@wmo.int'" [12] Dear Mr. Baddour, As per our telephone conversation I am writing to you about climate and temperature data. UN OCHA is currently working on an advocacy campaign to highlight the impact of climate change on hu manitarian action. An important aspect will be to make the case for different temperatures and incre ased extreme weather events. We are looking for data sets (so not images or graphs that have already combined the data) on the fo llowing: - Global combined average temperature for the last 150 years until 2008. - Data showing increase in temperature extremes (high & low) - Data showing increase in extreme precipitation events - Data showing increase in extreme drought events - Data showing increase in extreme storm (cyclone type) events The data will be used by OCHA to create maps, images etc to indicate trends We will credit the sourc e of the data accordingly. Could you give me an indication of when we could expect a response? Your help is much appreciated! Kind regards, Tomas de Mul Tomas de Mul UN OCHA/IRIN South Africa Cell: +27 (0)82 410 8950 Office: +27 (0)11 895 1900 Fax: +27 (0)11 784 6759 E-mail: [13]tomas@irinnews.org Web: [14]www.irinnews.org Help save paper - do you need to print this email? -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Peterson-Manton-Workshops-BAMS2008.pdf" 5333. 2008-09-17 16:39:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: Wibjörn Karlén , "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:39:07 +0100 (BST) from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Climate to: trenbert@ucar.edu Wibjorn, I'm in Athens at the moment. Unless you're referring specifically to the Arctic the temperature curves in IPCC Ch 3 all include the oceans. Fennoscandia is just a small part of the NH. When I'm back next week, I'll be able to calculate the boxes that encompass Fennoscandia, so you can compare with this region. As you're aware Anders did lots of the update work in 2001-2002 and he included all the NORDKLIM data. I can send you a list of the Fennoscandian data if you want - either the sites used or their data as well. I guess you're attachments are in your direct email, which I come to later. One final thing - we are getting SST data in from some of the new sea-ice free parts of the Arctic. We are not using these as we've yet to figure out how to as we don't have normals for these 'mostly covered by sea ice in the 1961-90' areas. Cheers Phil > Hi Wibjorn > It appears that your concern is mainly with the surface temprature record, > and my co lead author in IPCC, Phil Jones, is best able to address those > questions. However the IPCC only uses published data plus their > extensions and in our Chapter the sources of the data are well documented, > along with their characteristics. I offer a few more comments below (my > comments are limited as I am on vacation and away from my office). > > >> >> >> Uppsala 17 September 2008, >> >> >> >> Dear Kevin, >> >> >> >> In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the >> temperature >> curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: > Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64. >> >> >> >> In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the > early >> 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another > increase >> to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s. >> >> >> >> A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 >> is >> reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent > increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible > human >> influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase >> above >> the late 1930s. >> > > This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large > gaps spatially. How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome. > In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and > character. In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of > inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent > years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment > but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008. Anomalies of over 5C > are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if > there was ice there previously. These and other indicators show that > there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC. > >> >> >> In my letter to “Klass V” I included diagram showing the mean annual > temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net > by >> the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological > institutes >> in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an >> increase >> after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None > demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6 > areas are very similar except for a few interesting details. >> >> > > Results will also depend on the exact region. > >> >> I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas > using >> data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 > stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N. > The >> pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows > 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojansk > and >> Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 > deg >> C >> above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the > temperature >> has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the > last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent > temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s. >> >> >> >> In preparation of some talks I have been invited to give, I have > expanded >> the Nordic area both west and east. The area of similar change in > climate >> is >> vast. Only a few stations near Bering Strait deviates (e.g. St Paul, > Kodiak, >> Nome, located south of 65 deg. N). >> >> >> >> My studies include Africa, a study which took me most of a summer > because >> there are a large number of stations in the NASA records. I found 11 > stations including data from 1898-1975 and 16 stations including > 1950-2003. >> The data sets could in a convincing way be spliced. However, I noticed >> that >> some persons were not familiar with “splicing” technique so I have >> accepted >> to reduce the study to the 7 stations including data from the whole > period >> between 1898-2003. The results are similar as to the spiced data set and > also, surprisingly similar to the variability of the Nordic data. > Regression >> indicates a minor (if any) decrease in temperature (I have used all > stations >> independent of location, city location or not). >> > Africa is notorious for missing and inaccurate data and needs careful > assessment. >> >> >> Another example is Australia. NASA only presents 3 stations covering the > period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based > on? >> If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period > (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. >> >> > > The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps > of changes and trends. > > >> >> There are more examples, but I think this is much enough for my present > point: >> >> >> >> How has the laboratories feeding IPCC with temperature records selected > stations? >> > See our chapter and the appendices. >> >> >> I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect > (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major > cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC? Lennart > Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but > from >> what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic >> > > Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very > local. > >> >> >> Next step has been to compare my results with temperature records in the > literature. One interesting figures is published by you in: >> >> >> >> Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming. >> Science >> 308: 1753-1754. >> >> >> >> As you obviously know, the recent increase in temperature above the > 1940s >> is >> minor between 10 deg N and 20 deg N and only slightly larger above the > temperature maximum in the early 1950s. Booth the increases in > temperature >> in the 1930s and in the 1980s to 1990s is of similar amplitude and > similar >> steepness, if any difference possibly slightly less steep in the > northern >> area than in the southern (the eddies slow down the warm water >> transport?). >> Your diagram describes a limited area of the North Atlantic because you >> are >> primarily interested in hurricanes. The complexity of sea surface > temperature increases and decreases is seen in e.g. Cabanes, C, et al. > 2001 >> (Science 294: 840-842). >> > > As we discuss, there is a lot of natural variability in the North Atlantic > but there is also a common component that relates to global changes. See > my GRL article with Shea for more details. > Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2006: Atlantic hurricanes and natural > variability in 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12704, > doi:10.1029/2006GL026894. > >> >> >> One example of sea surface temperature is published by: >> >> >> >> Goldenberg, S.B., Landsea, C.W., Mestas-Nuñez, A.M. and Gray, W.M., > 2001: >> The recent increases in Atlantic hurricane activity: causes and >> implications. Science 293: 474-479. >> >> >> >> Again, there is a marked increase in temperature in the 1930s and 1950s > (about 1 deg C), a decrease to approximately the level in the 1910s and > thereafter a new increase to a temperature slightly below the level in > the1940s. >> >> >> One example of published data not supporting a major temperature > increase >> during recent time is: >> >> >> Polyakov, I.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Alekseev, G.H., Bhatt,U.S., Colony, > R.L., >> Johnson, M.A., Maskshtas, A.P. and Walsh, D., 2003: Variability and > Trends >> of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000. > Journal >> of Climate: Vol. 16 (12): 2067–2077. >> >> >> >> >> He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of >> temperatures >> N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find evidence of a >> drastic >> warming of the Arctic. >> >> >> >> It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban > areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase > in >> temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole are is urbanised > (see >> e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology – the biology of darkness. Global > change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004). >> >> >> >> >> >> So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring > temperature >> increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming > seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned > correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a > factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is > solar >> irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation > but >> papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2 > release >> will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how > expensive). >> > > You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and > you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to > doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are > very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at > one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture. > > >> >> >> In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the >> release >> of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in >> the >> future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2. >> > I disagree. >> >> >> I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that > winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100 > years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C. The 5.5 deg C figure has been > repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is > not >> supporting attempts to save fossil fuel. >> >> >> >> I have numerous diagrams illustrating the discussion above. I don’t >> include >> these in an e-mail because my computer can only handle a few at a time. > If >> you would like to see some, I can send them by air mail. >> >> >> >> I am often asked about why I don’t publish about my views. I have. Just >> one >> example of among 100 other I could select is: Karlén, W., 2001: Global > temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio > 30(6): >> 349-350. >> >> >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> >> >> Wibjörn >> >> >> >> Geografiska Annaler >> >> Professor em Wibjörn Karlén >> >> Department of Social and Economic Geography >> >> >> Geografiska Annaler Ser. A >> >> Box 513 >> >> SE-751 20 Uppsala >> >> SWEDEN >> >> >> >> Wibjorn.Karlen@kultgeog.uu.se >> > > I trust that Phil Jones may also respond > Regards > Kevin Trenberth > > > ___________________ > Kevin Trenberth > Climate Analysis Section, NCAR > PO Box 3000 > Boulder CO 80307 > ph 303 497 1318 > http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html > > > > 2549. 2008-09-17 22:23:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:23:10 +0200 from: Thomas Stocker subject: [Wg1-ar4-las] IPCC WG I: Head TSU AR5 - Job Opening to: wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu, wg1-ar4-re@joss.ucar.edu IPCC Fifth Assessment Report ---------------------------- Dear Colleagues and Friends of AR4 ! As you may have heard the 29th IPCC Plenary has elected a new Bureau and has tasked Qin Dahe and me to co-chair Working Group I for the coming Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. In consequence we are now in the process of establishing the Technical Support Unit of WG I at the University of Bern (Switzerland). The search for Head of TSU is open. I send this email to you to solicit your support in this search. You have made significant contributions to AR4 as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, or Review Editors. With your experience, therefore, you fully appreciate the importance of this key position. Many of you know individuals who may be interested in this position and may consider to submit their candidacy. I would very much appreciate if you could bring this mail to their attention. The advertisement is attached to this email. Please feel free to distribute it as you see fit and contact people about this unique opportunity. Alternatively, if you prefer, you are also welcome to suggest persons whom I then would approach personally. Thank you very much for your valuable support and help in this important matter. Best regards, Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Stocker Co-Chair IPCC WGI 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 www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\IPCCwg1HeadTSUad.pdf" _______________________________________________ Wg1-ar4-las mailing list Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las 1823. 2008-09-18 11:36:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 18 11:36:21 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: PolarCLIMATE call to: Håkan Grudd Hakan I agree this might be a way forward - and I am certainly no less keen to work with you again. I need to study the documents - and think for a bit cheers Keith At 11:25 18/09/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, I hope all is well with you & family! Maybe the PolarCLIMATE Call from ESF can be an opportunity for a circum-Arctic (or Eurasian) tree-ring project!? [1]http://www.esf.org/research-areas/european-polar-board-epb/testpageforpolarclimatecal l.html I would very much like to work with you again on the northern data. _______________________________________________________ By the way, what is your opinion of the paper by Craig Loehle recently published online in Climatic Change? I note that he has published several papers in Energy & Environment, which I guess makes him some sort of "sceptic". He has a point though. He puts in print some worries I have had since first starting off with the tree rings: The non-linear growth response, which we all know is there but which we do not really account for in making reconstructions. Cheers, Håkan -- ________________________ Håkan Grudd, PhD Department of Physical Geography & Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm URL: [2]http://ink.su.se Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 E-mail: [3]hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se Personal webpage: [4]http://people.su.se/~hgrud -- 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/ 2612. 2008-09-18 12:17:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:17:07 +0100 from: "Nicola Lewis" subject: [nerc-atmos] Ice Sheet and Sea Level Rise Scoping Study to: NERC Atmospheric Sciences Listserver ******************************************************** Ice Sheet and Sea Level Rise Scoping Study In support of the delivery of the NERC Strategy, in particular the Earth System Science, Climate System and Natural Hazards themes, a scoping study has been commissioned to put forwards a series of options for a research programme that will improve our understanding of the stability of ice sheets and to narrow uncertainties in the projection of the ice sheet component of sea level rise for the forthcoming decades and centuries, and by extension the impact of changes in the volume of ice sheets on sea level. The scoping study is intended to provide the NERC Theme Leaders with the information they need to put forwards a proposed activity that meets NERC's strategic priorities. Professor Liz Morris has been appointed to undertake the scoping study, which aims to report at the end of February 2009. Your inputs to the study would be welcomed. Please contact Liz on emm36@cam.ac.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. _______________________________________________ NERC-Atmos mailing list NERC-Atmos@ncas.ac.uk http://lists.ncas.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/nerc-atmos 2847. 2008-09-18 18:03:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:03:40 +0800 from: "Jennifer" subject: Re: Carbon investment in Abu Dhabi to: [1]wcers banner 364x64 px 20 - 23 October 2008 | Le Royal Meridien Abu Dhabi, UAE Dear Colleague, Why should you miss the gold rush? Carbon trading is emerging as a viable activity in the Middle East, with a strong growing base of investments in carbon emission reduction technologies and projects. [2]World Carbon Emission Reduction Summit has the essential insights into how to tap into alternative energy investment opportunities in the region! Steve McMillan, CEO of IMEX (International Mercantile Exchange), is enthusiastic about the prospects for carbon trading (Arabianbusiness.com): "I think it's a massive opportunity for the region," he says. "Carbon emissions opportunities in the Middle East are dramatic. Energy production in itself obviously creates opportunities to create carbon emissions reduction schemes and various other opportunities. I think it's a massive opportunity for the region and I'd like to think we'll be involved in trading." BOOK YOUR PLACE NOW! · 80% of seats already sold! · 40% off the published room rate for Le Royal Meridien Abu Dhabi when booked through the event · 30% of hotel rooms remaining available for the event! To register, please contact me today. You may call me at (65) 6506 0965, fax (65) 6749 7293, or email [3]marketing@alleventsgroup.com. [4]World Carbon Emission Reduction Summit website | Download [5]Brochure: [6]Press release See you in Abu Dhabi, 20 - 23 October, 2008. Warmest regards, Garcon Thomas Bernavil Marketing Manager Energy Network Embedded Content: image0018.png: 00000001,06560b8b,00000000,00000000 5320. 2008-09-19 04:01:15 ______________________________________________________ cc: Ronald Stouffer date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:01:15 -0700 from: Karl Taylor subject: Proposed experiment design for CMIP5 (revised) to: bryant.mcavaney@lmd.jussieu.fr, Curtis Covey , Jerry Meehl , "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" , mlatif@ifm-geomar.de, Tom.Delworth@noaa.gov, Andreas Hense , Asgeir Sorteberg , Erich Roeckner , Evgeny Volodin , "Gary L. Russell" , Gavin Schmidt , GFDL.Climate.Model.Info@noaa.gov, Greg Flato , Helge Drange , Jason Lowe , Jean-Francois Royer , Jean-Louis Dufresne , Jozef Syktus , Julia Slingo , Kimoto Masahide , Peter Gent , Qingquan Li , Seita Emori , Seung-Ki Min , Shan Sun , Shoji Kusunoki , Shuting Yang , Silvio Gualdi , Stephanie Legutke , Tongwen Wu , Tony Hirst , Toru Nozawa , Wilhelm May , Won-Tae Kwon , Ying Xu , Yong Luo , Yongqiang Yu , Kamal Puri , Tim Stockdale , Gabi Hegerl , James Murphy , Marco Giorgetta , George Boer , Myles Allen , claudia tebaldi , Ben Santer , Tim Barnett , Nathan Gillett , Phil Jones , David Karoly , Dáithí Stone , "Stott, Peter" , Francis Zwiers , Toru Nozawa , Ken Sperber , Dave Bader , Mike MacCracken , boyle5@llnl.gov, Stephen Klein , "A. Pier Siebesma" , William Rossow , Chris Bretherton , George Tselioudis , Mark Webb , Sandrine Bony , James Hack , Martin Miller , Ken Kunkel , Christian Jakob , Kathy Hibbard , "Eyring, Veronika" , pasb@dsm-mail.saclay.cea.fr, giorgi@ictp.trieste.it, c.lequere@uea.ac.uk, naki@eeg.tuwien.ac.at, stephen.griffies@noaa.gov, Peter Cox , Pierre Friedlingstein , Olivier Boucher , Bala Govindasamy , Jonathan Gregory , Chris Jones , "Jones, Gareth S" , David Lobell , peter gleckler , Cath Senior , Keith Williams , "stephen e. schwartz" , David Easterling , Inez Fung , Duane Waliser , William Collins , Ken Caldeira , Dave Randall , Joyce Penner , Anna Pirani , Bjorn Stevens , "V. Ramaswamy" , Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, Bin Wang , Tianjun Zhou , Thomas Stocker Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id m8JB2EeK011729 Dear all, As you know, the experiment design for CMIP5 has been under review. Thanks to those of you who have commented on the draft of July 21?, 2008. In response to input from individuals and groups, I have modified the document except when a suggestion seemed controversial or had previously been ruled out by consensus. The revised experiment design summary is attached (Taylor_CMIP5_expts7.pdf), and below is a brief summary of the major changes made and the major issues raised in response to the earlier draft. These issues will need to be discussed at the WGCM meeting next week. I apologize for not having time to revise the document earlier. I also have failed to fully synthesize a clear consensus for the experiment design. After the WGCM addresses the major outstanding issues, I will revise the document once more and try to incorporate any input I have already received that is consistent with the agreed upon design. I have attached three other documents prepared by interested groups: 1. A document (OzoneDatabase_InputCMIP5_V2.pdf) from SPARC CCMVal describing their plan to “provide stratospheric ozone boundary conditions suitable for long-term global climate model simulations such as the … CMIP5 experiments 1.2 and 2.1-2.4.” 2. A summary (comments_IDAG.pdf) from the “International Detection & Attribution Group,” providing a perspective on a possible shift of priorities for some of the CMIP5 experiments, and contributing text that provides further motivation for performing the detection and attribution experiments summarized in Table 6. 3. A letter (CFMIP2_WGCM_Sept2008_summary.pdf) from the CFMIP coordination committee (with the endorsement of WGNE and of the GEWEX Scientific Steering Group) suggesting that the CMIP5 experiment design should include a few additional (short) experiments and output useful for diagnosing cloud responses in models. Important changes made to the CMIP5 experiment design document include the following: 1. The document now reflects the view that the near-term and long-term experiments are equally important, but modeling groups are not required to contribute results for both types of simulations. In the earlier draft, the fact that none of the near-term experiments were designated as mandatory made it appear that those experiments were not of as much interest. 2. Several changes were made to Table 2, which summarizes the future projection runs with prescribed concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases according to various representative concentration pathways (RCP’s), including the following: - the priorities of RCP2.7 and RCP4.5 were switched, with RCP4.5 now considered mandatory (but not RCP2.7). This change was made because RCP4.5 will be imposed in expt. 3.3, the emission-driven coupled carbon climate model run (instead of RCP8.5, which was so designated in the previous draft). RCP4.5 will now also be specified in the near-term experiments. - likewise, the highest priority for extending an RCP run beyond the 21^st century has been switched to the RCP4.5 simulation. - The first priority for each RCP will be to simulate through the end of the 21^st century, rather than to year 2150 as previously specified. 3. The possibility that the WGCM will decide that the analysis of carbon climate feedbacks should be done for a realistic RCP, rather than for the idealized 1%/yr CO2 increase, was allowed for by including expt. 3.4. In this case expts. 4.2a,b would be eliminated. 4. The priority of one run of Expt. 4.2 has been downgraded to “very high”, and Expt. 4.3c, which would have allowed us to analyze “fast” responses of the carbon cycle to changes in atmospheric concentrations, was eliminated. 5. Following the advice of the detection and attribution community, the priority of expt. 6.2 has been increased to “very high” and the simulation has been switched to GHG-only from anthro-only. The highest priority ensemble simulation (expt. 6.4) has been switched to natural-only from GHG-only. 6. Sections 7 and 8 were switched, so now all the long-term expts. are described before the near-term experiments. 7. Section 9 (additional remarks) was eliminated. There are a number of issues that must be resolved. Issues: 1. Should additional experiments be performed that aim to isolate in each model the effects of aerosols. In particular should special diagnostic runs be performed to calculate aerosol forcing, just as special CO2-only runs are a part of the experiment design? 2. Should the strength of carbon/climate feedbacks be evaluated in the historical and RCP4.5 simulations or in the idealized 1%/yr simulation? 3. Should the priority of the detection and attribution experiments be higher? 4. Should the CFMIP recommendation, which calls for some additional experiments to be performed that would improve understanding of the range of cloud feedbacks in models, be accepted? It can be argued that the consequences of uncertainty in cloud feedbacks are at least as important as the consequences of uncertainty in carbon/climate feedbacks, which receive considerable attention under the current experiment design. 5. Is it important to isolate the impact of land use changes on historical and future climate change? The current experiment design will not provide this information. 6. The ending date for the historical runs and the start date for future runs need to be agreed upon. It has been proposed to extend the historical runs to very near present (say 2009), but start the projection runs earlier (say 2005). Whatever is decided, the historical concentrations (or emissions) should smoothly transition into the future. 7. Is it absolutely necessary for models with a carbon cycle component to run two control simulations, one with prescribed pre-industrial concentrations and one fully coupled and free to evolve? I hope those of you who will be at the WGCM meeting next week will have a moment to think about these issues, and I look forward to the discussion. With best regards, Karl Karl E. Taylor PCMDI Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Taylor_CMIP5_expts7.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\OzoneDatabase_InputCMIP5_V2.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\CFMIP2_WGCM_Sept2008_summary.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\comments_IDAG.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\preWGCM_letter.pdf" 1601. 2008-09-19 14:57:47 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Sep 19 14:57:47 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: your references to: Zong-ci, Here are two pdfs. The paper by Brohan et al (2006) is too big to email. This papers looks at the uncertainty in more detail than earlier. Also I've attached a recent paper on Chinese urban issues in JGR. I think China is one of the few places that are affected. The paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the 20th century. There are a couple of issues re your points 1-4. The stations don't need to be continuous. We are using anomalies, so all we need is the base period of 1961-90. The third attachment has a figure in of the effect of changing numbers. Cheers Phil At 03:26 19/09/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil: A famous Chinese Journal asked me to review a Chinese paper. They investigated on the uncertainties of the global observed data of the surface air temperature for the last 100 years by the IPCC AR4. They argued and oppugned the global warming for the last 100 years. They show several key points: (1)A low coverage of the observed temperature (2)An asymmetric distribution of the observed temperature (3)The different decades had the various numbers of the stations for the last 100 years (4)The data of most stations are discontinuous. Only a few stations had the long time series such as 100 years. (5)Effects of Urbanization and heat islands on most stations I remembered that you and your group had investigated those issues for a long time. Can you send me some references by e-mail? For example, Brohan, P., et al., 2006, Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new data set from 1850, J.G.R., III, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548; Jones, P.D. and A.Moberg, 2003, Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and update to 2001, J.Clim., 16, 206-223£»and others. Thank you very much. I am sorry to disturb you. Best regards. Zong-Ci Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1253. 2008-09-19 16:46:14 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:46:14 +0200 from: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Congratulations! to: Phil Jones Thanks, Phil for your kind email. Yes, for the first time there was a real election at the IPCC Session. I hope we can count on you in whatever role in AR5! The skeptics are indeed mounting their pressure. Best regards, Thomas Phil Jones wrote: > > Thomas, > I've been meaning to email you with congratulations, but have been > too busy with meetings and the start of term. I heard that > it came down to you or Francis, so the science did win out. > > Not decided yet if I want to be involved again. The more the skeptics > get at me, the more I want to do it again! > > Cheers > Phil > > At 21:23 17/09/2008, you wrote: >> IPCC Fifth Assessment Report >> ---------------------------- >> >> Dear Colleagues and Friends of AR4 ! >> >> As you may have heard the 29th IPCC Plenary has elected a new Bureau and >> has tasked Qin Dahe and me to co-chair Working Group I for the coming >> Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. >> >> In consequence we are now in the process of establishing the Technical >> Support Unit of WG I at the University of Bern (Switzerland). The search >> for Head of TSU is open. >> >> I send this email to you to solicit your support in this search. You >> have made significant contributions to AR4 as Coordinating Lead Authors, >> Lead Authors, or Review Editors. With your experience, therefore, you >> fully appreciate the importance of this key position. >> >> Many of you know individuals who may be interested in this position and >> may consider to submit their candidacy. I would very much appreciate if >> you could bring this mail to their attention. >> >> The advertisement is attached to this email. Please feel free to >> distribute it as you see fit and contact people about this unique >> opportunity. Alternatively, if you prefer, you are also welcome to >> suggest persons whom I then would approach personally. >> >> Thank you very much for your valuable support and help in this important >> matter. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Thomas >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Thomas Stocker >> Co-Chair IPCC WGI >> 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 www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wg1-ar4-las mailing list >> Wg1-ar4-las@joss.ucar.edu >> http://lists.joss.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/wg1-ar4-las > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 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 www.climate.unibe.ch/stocker ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2039. 2008-09-22 12:10:03 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , Phil Jones date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:10:03 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" well, hope you had a good time, Dave! I'll talk with Keith to see what we have on this topic. I do know that I didn't send any data or information directly to Mike Mann for the work that Stephen McIntyre discusses. I expect (though I don't "know") that Mann obtained the data from Scott Rutherford, to whom we did send some data and information for an earlier study. The information (but not the data) sent to Rutherford for this earlier study is already described on my webpage: under the subsection Rutherford et al. (2005, Journal of Climate). Given that I don't know for sure that the data Mann used are identical to the data that we hold and sent to Rutherford, I'm not sure whether we are obliged to search our files to see if we can find the data than were sent to Rutherford? Of course, if we tell McIntyre this, he'll just submit an FOI for the data we sent Rutherford. It was about 6 years ago, so I'm not sure I'd be able to identify the files for sure anyway. Cheers Tim At 11:00 22/09/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Folks, >Just got back from hols and picked this up - unfortunately, in all >the email I receive, my cover for my FOI duties didn't pick this one >up... Have any of you responded to Mr. McIntyre directly as yet in any way? >I will provide the appropriate acknowledgement of the request - >deadline is 8 October.... > >Cheers, Dave > > >---------- >From: Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:55 AM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV) >Subject: Schweingruber Series > >Dear Mr Palmer, > >In the Supporting Information to Mann et al (PNAS 2008), in >particular >http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/SD1.xls >, a number of "Schweingruber" series are listed, with nomenclature >such as schweingruber_mxdabd_grid11, which I presume were provided >by Keith Briffa or Tim Osborn of the UEA. > >Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and/or Environmental >Information REgulations, whichever is aplicable, would you please >provide me with a digital version of these data sets in the form >provided to Dr Mann, together with any relevant meta-data, manuals >or literature describing the grid locations of the series and the >method of their calculation. > >Thank you for your attention, > >Stephen McIntyre > 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 4860. 2008-09-22 12:25:40 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Kevin Trenberth" date: Mon Sep 22 12:25:40 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: climate to: Wibjörn Karlén Wibjorn, I'll attach a couple of papers. In the first from 1994 you can see that I have calculated the global average from land stations based on a limited network (172 stations). This reveals much the same course of temperature change as the full network (~3000). The reason this works is that there aren't 3000 spatial degrees of freedom across the world's land areas - on the monthly and upwards timescale. The number of spatial degrees of freedom reduces as the timescale increases out to decades, centuries etc. This is the reason why a limited number of proxy locations around the world can produce longer millennial-scale NH series. There are numerous long-term stations around the world. I don't know where you've been looking but they are very numerous. It is generally not of much use going to many Met Services, even in Europe, as many haven't put together their long records. Most are only interested in weather forecasting and putting up sondes. Italy is the classic example here. The Scandinavian met services have made good efforts, however, and these are now being extended to Germany, Holland, France and Spain. As I said earlier we have all the NORDKLIM data in our database. We also have all the good work undertaken in Canada, Australia, NZ and Japan, as well as Austria, Switzerland, Spain and work done outside the met service in Italy. Australia is an interesting example. Here exposure issues before the mid-1910s are an issue to developing much longer series. Most of the Australian provinces did not introduce Stevenson screens until this time, so their records before the change are too warm. NZ in contrast put Stevenson screens into operation at all their sites in the 1870s, so their series are much longer and homoegeneous throughout. Neville Nicholls knows how to adjust the Australian sites before about 1915, but can't get anyone interested in supporting the work there. A barely read paper on this issue is Nicholls, N., R. Tapp, K. Burrows, and D. Richards, 1996. Historical thermometer exposures in Australia. Int. J. Climatology, 16, 705-710. As I mentioned earlier, Anders and I are aware of the same exposure issue with summers in Sweden before the 1860s. I'm involved with a group at the Austrian Met Service, who have developed a technique for adjusting the pre-1870 records (mainly in the summers) for exposure issues of direct sunlight on the instruments. The paper is in peer-review. It results from about 15 years of overlapping measurements of the old pre-1870 exposure and modern exposure at one site in Austria. This will result in central European temperatures being reduced by about 0.5 deg C for summers before about 1870. If the long Adelaide comparisons were applied across Australia it would result in a similar sort of change. Australia is a large country though and Adelaide is not a very typical climate. I'm attaching a more recent paper on Chinese temperature trends. In this I use examples from London and Vienna to show that urban sites in Europe, while having Urban Heat Islands, are not getting any warmer than their rural surrounding sites during the 20th century. The situation is different in China. For many European cities and maybe some others in other developed regions city centre sites are not getting any warmer. There is a reference in the paper to New York City as well. I realise that none of this answers your questions, but in many cases you're asking the wrong questions, or not aware of work that has already been done. Cheers Phil At 08:51 19/09/2008, you wrote: Uppsala 19 September Dear Phil, Thanks for offering to calculate temperature for boxes for Scandinavia. However, I repeat what Bradley said some years ago: I prefer to calculate a global mean on seven good stations than to use thousand not so good stations. It is hard to know which stations that is good but for the Nordic countries the meteorological institutes have done a screening. The area with the trend in climate I think is typical is not small. It includes Greenland and at least western Russia and northern Siberia. Also it includes US (not my calculation, see below), Africa (few long term stations but the same trend. Only three stations are published for Australia. These indicate a cooling since late 1800s. So do southern South America. In most areas there are no stations which have operated over a long period. Personally, I think it is time to rethink about global warming. Splicing is risky and particularly using short records. The quality of many stations is poor. As I am sure you know, US is no sorting out many stations because of poor location. Wherever I have travelled, I have seen surprising examples which can lead to erroneous records. It would be better to use a few station, carefully checked in field than a lot of records. Wibjörn [] Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4775. 2008-09-22 14:12:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Sep 22 14:12:56 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Downward trend in relative humidity over land? to: Adrian.Simmons@ecmwf.int, Kate Willett Adrian, Thanks for the plots. Kate didn't see much happening with RH, but the 1-1.5% reduction is probably too small to be that clear. It may also not be statistically significant either. Kate's series finished in 2003, so the last 3 years may be a factor as you say. The increase in q wasn't quite as large as expected from temperature, but the thought at the time was that this was due to the air over land not being saturated as it would be over the ocean. Thinking aloud, we could do a simple back of the envelope calculation and see if the slight reduction in RH explains the difference between the expected from T changes in q and what Kate sees with the real q obs. These are probably worth showing, to see if anybody next week has any more thoughts. I guess you can't produce similar series for q? Kate has received the proofs. I'll attach these. The password you need to open this is JCLI2274. JCLI and then 2274. Kate is also putting together another paper. Glad to hear you'll have some time later in the year. Cheers Phil At 11:58 22/09/2008, Adrian Simmons wrote: Phil, Kate I'm afraid I've been hopelessly busy with my day job and standard GCOS matters of late, so the surface humidity stuff was put to one side until yesterday evening. I'm in Boulder next week, and will be giving a talk on reanalysis at NOAA/ESRL on the Friday. I thought I would include the surface humidity comparisons between HADCRUH and ERA, and decided last night to set off the data retrieval needed to plot relative humidity time series from ERA (-40 and -Interim versions). I've plotted the results this morning (for all land points, not just for the grid boxes where there are HADCRUH data) and attach them for selected areas. I hope the plots are self-explanatory. Time series are adjusted to give zero mean value for the overlap period between ERA-40 and ERA-Interim (1989-2001). These plots give a clear impression of a downward trend in relative humidity (cf AR4, where it is stated "trends are uncertain, but suggest that it [relative humidity] has remained the same overall" - perhaps you wrote this Phil). This may not be that inconsistent with earlier evidence - Kate's thesis summary does indicate a trend in specific humidity that is slightly less than that expected for constant relative humidity, although you state that trends in RH are statistically indistinguishable from zero, and the indication of a downward trend in the ERA results is strengthened by the low values analysed for recent years. What do you make of this? I've used a quite standard set of programs to do the calculations, so it's unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that I've made a mistake. I would be wary about the quality of the reanalysis for the tropics, but reasonably confident about it for much of the extratropics. I'll not have much time to work on this for the next five or six weeks, but things may get easier in Nov/Dec, and by then ERA-Interim will be close to the present day. Best regards Adrian -- -------------------------------------------------- Adrian Simmons European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK Phone: +44 118 949 9700 Fax: +44 118 986 9450 -------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1852. 2008-09-23 08:28:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:28:25 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Tim Osborn" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Colleagues, Apart from a reply from Phil saying that he would get back to me on this I have heard nothing further. I have ploughed through all the emails relating to the FOIA requests and will discuss with Dave tomorrow. If there are any emails between yourselves which mention Mr Holland or to other parties internally or externally could you forward them to me please. On the basis of the emails in David's file I don't think that we need to meet to discuss this request. Once I have reviewed anything else that is around I will let you kbnow whether we need to meet or not. I am afraid that we have to comply with this request under law. Many thanks 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: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:37 AM To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); 'Tim Osborn'; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Holland - Data Protection Act Request Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to any personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to under the Act. Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up on him about progress after that date. 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 4251. 2008-09-23 09:59:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:59:01 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Michael, All my emails according to Eudora that mention David Holland also include you or Dave amongst the recipients or the senders. So you have them all. I have many others that mention Holland. These relate to work I'm doing with Dutch colleagues or someone in the Bridge Club I belong to who has the same surname. Cheers Phil At 09:29 23/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >Phil, > >Print outs would be great or if you could send them all in a folder >happy to get them printed out this end. Please don't worry about any >emails to Dave P or myself about FOIA since we have these already. > >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 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:10 AM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith >Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request > > > Michael, > Do you want us to print out the appropriate emails? > > Maybe there is a way to put them all into a folder and email to you. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 08:28 23/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: > >Colleagues, > > > >Apart from a reply from Phil saying that he would get back to me on >this > >I have heard nothing further. > > > >I have ploughed through all the emails relating to the FOIA requests >and > >will discuss with Dave tomorrow. If there are any emails between > >yourselves which mention Mr Holland or to other parties internally or > >externally could you forward them to me please. > > > >On the basis of the emails in David's file I don't think that we need >to > >meet to discuss this request. Once I have reviewed anything else that > >is around I will let you kbnow whether we need to meet or not. > > > >I am afraid that we have to comply with this request under law. > > > >Many thanks > > > >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: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) > >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:37 AM > >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); 'Tim Osborn'; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >Subject: Holland - Data Protection Act Request > > > > > >Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, > > > >Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to >any > >personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so > >and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. > >Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. > > > >We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that > >included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the > >Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me > >copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr > >Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other > >which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to > >other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators > >worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any > >replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any > >exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. > > > >We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to > >call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that > >we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to > >under the Act. > > > >Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on > >leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up > >on him about progress after that date. > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1381. 2008-09-23 12:18:18 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:18:18 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr \(ENV\)" Phil, Much though I would like to find out about your prowess at bridge I think you can keep those (and the Dutch ones) to yourself! Thanks for clarifying that there are no other emails referring to Mr Holland. 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: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:59 AM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request Michael, All my emails according to Eudora that mention David Holland also include you or Dave amongst the recipients or the senders. So you have them all. I have many others that mention Holland. These relate to work I'm doing with Dutch colleagues or someone in the Bridge Club I belong to who has the same surname. Cheers Phil At 09:29 23/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: >Phil, > >Print outs would be great or if you could send them all in a folder >happy to get them printed out this end. Please don't worry about any >emails to Dave P or myself about FOIA since we have these already. > >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 > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:10 AM >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith >Prof (ENV); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV) >Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request > > > Michael, > Do you want us to print out the appropriate emails? > > Maybe there is a way to put them all into a folder and email to you. > > Cheers > Phil > > >At 08:28 23/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: > >Colleagues, > > > >Apart from a reply from Phil saying that he would get back to me on >this > >I have heard nothing further. > > > >I have ploughed through all the emails relating to the FOIA requests >and > >will discuss with Dave tomorrow. If there are any emails between > >yourselves which mention Mr Holland or to other parties internally or > >externally could you forward them to me please. > > > >On the basis of the emails in David's file I don't think that we need >to > >meet to discuss this request. Once I have reviewed anything else that > >is around I will let you kbnow whether we need to meet or not. > > > >I am afraid that we have to comply with this request under law. > > > >Many thanks > > > >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: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) > >Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:37 AM > >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); 'Tim Osborn'; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >Subject: Holland - Data Protection Act Request > > > > > >Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, > > > >Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to >any > >personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so > >and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. > >Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. > > > >We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that > >included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the > >Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me > >copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr > >Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other > >which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to > >other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators > >worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any > >replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any > >exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. > > > >We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to > >call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that > >we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to > >under the Act. > > > >Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on > >leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up > >on him about progress after that date. > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- 3726. 2008-09-23 15:43:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:43:16 +0100 from: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" subject: UKCIP08 launch delay to: "Ag Stevens" , "Anna Steynor" , "Bryan Lawrence" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Colin Harpham" , "David Sexton" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" , "Jason Lowe" , "Kevin Marsh" , "Mark Elkington" , "Paul Bowyer" , "Phil James" , "Phil Jones" , "Richard Westaway" , "Roger Street" , "Sarah Callaghan" Dear all, MOHC have found a problem through their sensitivity testing with the calculation of the discrepancy term in that it is throwing out odd results for winter mean temperature in Scotland, proportion of dry days in Scotland and specific humidity. They have suggested to us that the best option for dealing with this is to try out another method of calculating the discrepancy which they believe will work better, and if it does, this will involve re-doing all of the PDFs given that the same discrepancy calculation is used across the board. Defra have agreed that this seems to be the most sensible approach, which will inevitably lead to a delay in the launch. Next steps therefore involve: - Me and MOHC coming up with a line to give out on the reason for the delay that we can all give out to people. Geoff is going to help me write this. This line will need to go the Ministers, then the steering group, then out more widely, so for now please don't pass on that the launch is delayed to anyone, before we have a standard line to give out. If you have to, just pretend it's still 20^th November for now! We should have a line by tomorrow and let Ministers know a day or so afterwards so should be able to let the SG know this week. - I need an updated project plan from all of you combined to start to think about a new launch date. I have suggested February to colleagues here to test the water and there haven't been huge cries of woe, but I need to know what you think is sensible first and we also want to wait to see the first results of MOHC's re-analysis before agreeing a new launch date. The sooner I can get a revised project plan the better. - We need to decide if we want to call the project UKCIP09. Thoughts? - Colleagues here are keen to now incorporate a peer review as we are not tied to the November launch deadline. Geoff and I have discussed ways of doing this before, which basically involve sending the methodology out to a few key experts and asking for comments within a 4 week period or so. - I need to check who is waiting for the data to inform research or policy so that we can deal with their needs. If you know of any projects that are waiting for the data please let me know. That's a bit of a brain dump, but please ring me to discuss if you have any further queries especially about what work you should now be doing given that the PDFs are likely to change. I'll forward another email shortly with MOHC's suggested timing for re-doing the PDFs to help you plan your own timings. Kind Regards, Kathryn 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. 825. 2008-09-23 16:30:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 23 16:30:42 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: UKCIP08 launch delay to: c.goodess@uea.ac.uk Clare, Keep this to yourself for the time being! It will affect getting Maureen on the project. Kathryn is happy to do this, but needs a CV from her. I've emailed Maureen, but no response yet. I will now email Chris! Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: kathryn.humphrey@DEFRA.GSI.GOV.UK X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-89.messagelabs.com!1222180998!30695963!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [195.92.40.48] X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,452,1217804400"; d="scan'208,217";a="20567710" Subject: UKCIP08 launch delay Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:43:16 +0100 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: UKCIP08 launch delay Thread-Index: Ackdirawc0yRLGYoQay2Fy1dfdWsnA== Priority: Urgent From: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" To: "Ag Stevens" , "Anna Steynor" , "Bryan Lawrence" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Colin Harpham" , "David Sexton" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" , "Jason Lowe" , "Kevin Marsh" , "Mark Elkington" , "Paul Bowyer" , "Phil James" , "Phil Jones" , "Richard Westaway" , "Roger Street" , "Sarah Callaghan" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2008 14:43:17.0286 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7305460:01C91D8A] X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 9658921 - 73c0d05562b3 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=9658921&m=73c0d05562b3&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=9658921&m=73c0d05562b3&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=9658921&m=73c0d05562b3&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear all, MOHC have found a problem through their sensitivity testing with the calculation of the discrepancy term in that it is throwing out odd results for winter mean temperature in Scotland, proportion of dry days in Scotland and specific humidity. They have suggested to us that the best option for dealing with this is to try out another method of calculating the discrepancy which they believe will work better, and if it does, this will involve re-doing all of the PDFs given that the same discrepancy calculation is used across the board. Defra have agreed that this seems to be the most sensible approach, which will inevitably lead to a delay in the launch. Next steps therefore involve: - Me and MOHC coming up with a line to give out on the reason for the delay that we can all give out to people. Geoff is going to help me write this. This line will need to go the Ministers, then the steering group, then out more widely, so for now please dont pass on that the launch is delayed to anyone, before we have a standard line to give out. If you have to, just pretend its still 20^th November for now! We should have a line by tomorrow and let Ministers know a day or so afterwards so should be able to let the SG know this week. - I need an updated project plan from all of you combined to start to think about a new launch date. I have suggested February to colleagues here to test the water and there havent been huge cries of woe, but I need to know what you think is sensible first and we also want to wait to see the first results of MOHCs re-analysis before agreeing a new launch date. The sooner I can get a revised project plan the better. - We need to decide if we want to call the project UKCIP09. Thoughts? - Colleagues here are keen to now incorporate a peer review as we are not tied to the November launch deadline. Geoff and I have discussed ways of doing this before, which basically involve sending the methodology out to a few key experts and asking for comments within a 4 week period or so. - I need to check who is waiting for the data to inform research or policy so that we can deal with their needs. If you know of any projects that are waiting for the data please let me know. Thats a bit of a brain dump, but please ring me to discuss if you have any further queries especially about what work you should now be doing given that the PDFs are likely to change. Ill forward another email shortly with MOHCs suggested timing for re-doing the PDFs to help you plan your own timings. Kind Regards, Kathryn 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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 982. 2008-09-23 16:43:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 23 16:43:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: UKCIP08 launch delay to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" , "Ag Stevens" , "Anna Steynor" , "Bryan Lawrence" , "Butt, Adrian (CEOSA)" , "Chris Kilsby" , "Colin Harpham" , "David Sexton" , "Geoff Jenkins" , "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" , "Jason Lowe" , "Kevin Marsh" , "Mark Elkington" , "Paul Bowyer" , "Phil James" , "Richard Westaway" , "Roger Street" , "Sarah Callaghan" Kathryn, There are a few contracts from organizations like the EA, UKWIR (and probably others - UKCIP should have a complete list) who have put in place consultants (some of which include some of us) to explain to their organizations what UKCIP08 is all about. They all have timetables and schedules based on the Nov 20 launch. Checking my diary - I'm away Feb 2-5 in Geneva. Also I see I agreed to give a talk about the UKCIP08 WG to the Royal Meteorological Society on Feb 18 at a session Matt Collins is organizing. David, Roger and James down to talk at that as well. UKCIP08 sounds a lot better than UKCIP09! Cheers Phil At 15:43 23/09/2008, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: Dear all, MOHC have found a problem through their sensitivity testing with the calculation of the discrepancy term in that it is throwing out odd results for winter mean temperature in Scotland, proportion of dry days in Scotland and specific humidity. They have suggested to us that the best option for dealing with this is to try out another method of calculating the discrepancy which they believe will work better, and if it does, this will involve re-doing all of the PDFs given that the same discrepancy calculation is used across the board. Defra have agreed that this seems to be the most sensible approach, which will inevitably lead to a delay in the launch. Next steps therefore involve: - Me and MOHC coming up with a line to give out on the reason for the delay that we can all give out to people. Geoff is going to help me write this. This line will need to go the Ministers, then the steering group, then out more widely, so for now please dont pass on that the launch is delayed to anyone, before we have a standard line to give out. If you have to, just pretend its still 20^th November for now! We should have a line by tomorrow and let Ministers know a day or so afterwards so should be able to let the SG know this week. - I need an updated project plan from all of you combined to start to think about a new launch date. I have suggested February to colleagues here to test the water and there havent been huge cries of woe, but I need to know what you think is sensible first and we also want to wait to see the first results of MOHCs re-analysis before agreeing a new launch date. The sooner I can get a revised project plan the better. - We need to decide if we want to call the project UKCIP09. Thoughts? - Colleagues here are keen to now incorporate a peer review as we are not tied to the November launch deadline. Geoff and I have discussed ways of doing this before, which basically involve sending the methodology out to a few key experts and asking for comments within a 4 week period or so. - I need to check who is waiting for the data to inform research or policy so that we can deal with their needs. If you know of any projects that are waiting for the data please let me know. Thats a bit of a brain dump, but please ring me to discuss if you have any further queries especially about what work you should now be doing given that the PDFs are likely to change. Ill forward another email shortly with MOHCs suggested timing for re-doing the PDFs to help you plan your own timings. Kind Regards, Kathryn 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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3157. 2008-09-24 09:20:07 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk date: Wed Sep 24 09:20:07 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: UKCIP08 launch delay to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" Kathryn, When I said no new diagrams, I had realised that we still need to do the spatial maps for section 4 of the WG report. As these won't be final till after BADC gets the final sets of change factors from MOHC (~Nov 17), the review of the WG report could be set in motion fairly soon. As to coming to London for a meeting with you and Geoff, this would depend on the date. I'm away most of the next two weeks and have lectures to give during the week of Oct 13. Rob Wilby would be a possible reviewer. He didn't seem to respond to the WG report in the earlier set of reviews. I guess I'm assuming the reviews will be done for the WG during October and/or November, as our text is near final but for section 4. I wouldn't want the reviews done over Christmas and into January, and neither would the reviewers. I'd forgotten about the EPSRC set of projects. Cheers Phil At 19:18 23/09/2008, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: Thanks Phil; Ive spoken to Roger who is going to give me a list (much of which is through the EPSRCs new research programme I think)..we have a couple of internal projects that will get caught as well. Well be scrapping a side event we had planned to do at the COP in Poznan and Ill need to check what MOHC want to do about the RMS event as UKCIP08 was going to be a big part of it. Also have noted your views on the peer review. I know this wont be popular with you or MOHC for understandable reasons but will be helpful for the reputation of the project overall and may save work for after launch if we have additional peer review to back us up in case of challenges...though I know it will mean more work before launch. Im going to meet with Geoff and co to discuss how to go about this. Do you want to be involved in that meeting? The project team all want to keep ukcip08 but directors in defra seem to think Ministers will want it to be called ukcip09, so thatll be an interesting one to mediate! Kind Regards, Kathryn From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 23 September 2008 16:43 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Ag Stevens; Anna Steynor; Bryan Lawrence; Butt, Adrian (CEOSA); Chris Kilsby; Colin Harpham; David Sexton; Geoff Jenkins; Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); Jason Lowe; Kevin Marsh; Mark Elkington; Paul Bowyer; Phil James; Richard Westaway; Roger Street; Sarah Callaghan Subject: Re: UKCIP08 launch delay Kathryn, There are a few contracts from organizations like the EA, UKWIR (and probably others - UKCIP should have a complete list) who have put in place consultants (some of which include some of us) to explain to their organizations what UKCIP08 is all about. They all have timetables and schedules based on the Nov 20 launch. Checking my diary - I'm away Feb 2-5 in Geneva. Also I see I agreed to give a talk about the UKCIP08 WG to the Royal Meteorological Society on Feb 18 at a session Matt Collins is organizing. David, Roger and James down to talk at that as well. UKCIP08 sounds a lot better than UKCIP09! Cheers Phil At 15:43 23/09/2008, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: Dear all, MOHC have found a problem through their sensitivity testing with the calculation of the discrepancy term in that it is throwing out odd results for winter mean temperature in Scotland, proportion of dry days in Scotland and specific humidity. They have suggested to us that the best option for dealing with this is to try out another method of calculating the discrepancy which they believe will work better, and if it does, this will involve re-doing all of the PDFs given that the same discrepancy calculation is used across the board. Defra have agreed that this seems to be the most sensible approach, which will inevitably lead to a delay in the launch. Next steps therefore involve: - Me and MOHC coming up with a line to give out on the reason for the delay that we can all give out to people. Geoff is going to help me write this. This line will need to go the Ministers, then the steering group, then out more widely, so for now please dont pass on that the launch is delayed to anyone, before we have a standard line to give out. If you have to, just pretend its still 20^th November for now! We should have a line by tomorrow and let Ministers know a day or so afterwards so should be able to let the SG know this week. - I need an updated project plan from all of you combined to start to think about a new launch date. I have suggested February to colleagues here to test the water and there havent been huge cries of woe, but I need to know what you think is sensible first and we also want to wait to see the first results of MOHCs re-analysis before agreeing a new launch date. The sooner I can get a revised project plan the better. - We need to decide if we want to call the project UKCIP09. Thoughts? - Colleagues here are keen to now incorporate a peer review as we are not tied to the November launch deadline. Geoff and I have discussed ways of doing this before, which basically involve sending the methodology out to a few key experts and asking for comments within a 4 week period or so. - I need to check who is waiting for the data to inform research or policy so that we can deal with their needs. If you know of any projects that are waiting for the data please let me know. Thats a bit of a brain dump, but please ring me to discuss if you have any further queries especially about what work you should now be doing given that the PDFs are likely to change. Ill forward another email shortly with MOHCs suggested timing for re-doing the PDFs to help you plan your own timings. Kind Regards, Kathryn 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. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 258. 2008-09-24 11:44:49 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Wigley date: Wed Sep 24 11:44:49 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: An interesting call from DoE to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, Tom, See the attached - from Anjuli. Isn't this what we've been doing for years in CRU where it was called the LINK project! Tom wrote the original proposal in 1992. Nice to see the US finally catching up! Formats and software are one thing. The real effort within LINK was educating the impacts community within the UK on how to use the information. Interesting use of language with the non-research community! PCMDI would be in a good position to do this, but it is very much service oriented and responsive to users. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 155. 2008-09-24 11:54:27 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:54:27 +0100 from: kate.willett@metoffice.gov.uk subject: Re: Downward trend in relative humidity over land? to: Adrian.Simmons@ecmwf.int Over land I found non-significant and very small decadal trends, with the Northern Hemisphere trend actually being slightly positive. (G = -0.03, NH = 0.07, T = -0.10 and SH = -0.34 - SH data is very sparse and likely of low quality). In contrast, the Marine data showed very significant negative trends but I'm highly suspicious about the pre-1982 data which has a strong positive bias relative to the rest of the timeseries. The climatology period and possibly the way that anomalies are obtained differ for HadCRUH (1974 to 2003) although I'm guessing this should have little effect. The scale on my plots is large and so its perhaps difficult to see any trends and I agree that the additional 3 years in the ERA data bring make the negative trend clearer. I have had problems with different trend fitting techniques giving more/less attention to end points of the series and so giving very different trends. Ideally it would be nice if ERA and HadCRUH were in good agreement but I think it may be realistic that they are not given the variability in RH over land and the likely very different ways that RH is derived for both. I like the idea of a rough sanity check to see if the q and RH changes in ERA are consistent. For HadCRUH I did a very rough version of percentage change in q for 1K increase in T using the idea that for constant RH a ~7% increase in q would be expected. Results suggest global land q increases are consistent with constant RH (~7%), NH land q increases suggest a slight increase in RH (~8 %) and Tropics land q increase suggest a decreasing RH (~5.5 %). Not sure if all the above is helpful or just rambling. I think presenting the plots at Boulder is a good idea though. Kate Dr Kate Willett Climate Research Scientist Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB tel. +44 1392 884288 fax +44 1392 885681 (mark for my attention) www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs 4861. 2008-09-24 12:33:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: Phil Jones date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:33:56 +0100 from: Adrian Simmons subject: Re: Downward trend in relative humidity over land? to: kate.willett@metoffice.gov.uk Thanks for this, Kate. This will need some digging into, as for Europe I see a higher RH anomaly in the first half of the period for ERA than for HadCRUH, when I do the comparison by upscaling and sampling ERA to match HadCRUH. This needs to be understood. The agreement for RH is not as good as for q. What remains a solid result is that RH is notably low in the last few years of the ERA period (which currently ends in July 2006 - two more years to go). First challenge (after finding some spare time) will be to work out exactly how RH has been calculated. I take the archived 2m T and Td for ERA and put it into a library routine to produce RH. That routine was written more than thirty years ago, and I have to find the documentation. Don't hold your breath, but I'll let you know when I've managed to make some progress. Best regards Adrian kate.willett@metoffice.gov.uk wrote: > Over land I found non-significant and very small decadal trends, with > the Northern Hemisphere trend actually being slightly positive. (G = > -0.03, NH = 0.07, T = -0.10 and SH = -0.34 - SH data is very sparse and > likely of low quality). In contrast, the Marine data showed very > significant negative trends but I'm highly suspicious about the pre-1982 > data which has a strong positive bias relative to the rest of the > timeseries. > > The climatology period and possibly the way that anomalies are obtained > differ for HadCRUH (1974 to 2003) although I'm guessing this should have > little effect. The scale on my plots is large and so its perhaps > difficult to see any trends and I agree that the additional 3 years in > the ERA data bring make the negative trend clearer. I have had problems > with different trend fitting techniques giving more/less attention to > end points of the series and so giving very different trends. Ideally it > would be nice if ERA and HadCRUH were in good agreement but I think it > may be realistic that they are not given the variability in RH over land > and the likely very different ways that RH is derived for both. > > I like the idea of a rough sanity check to see if the q and RH changes > in ERA are consistent. For HadCRUH I did a very rough version of > percentage change in q for 1K increase in T using the idea that for > constant RH a ~7% increase in q would be expected. Results suggest > global land q increases are consistent with constant RH (~7%), NH land q > increases suggest a slight increase in RH (~8 %) and Tropics land q > increase suggest a decreasing RH (~5.5 %). > > Not sure if all the above is helpful or just rambling. I think > presenting the plots at Boulder is a good idea though. > > Kate > > Dr Kate Willett Climate Research Scientist > Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB > tel. +44 1392 884288 fax +44 1392 885681 (mark for my attention) > www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs -- -------------------------------------------------- Adrian Simmons European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Shinfield Park, Reading, RG2 9AX, UK Phone: +44 118 949 9700 Fax: +44 118 986 9450 -------------------------------------------------- 2458. 2008-09-24 17:51:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn , dave lister date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:51:08 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Cru TS 3.0 data to: Daniel Kingston Hi Daniel, OK, I've found it - I think. If we look at the nine cells surrounding and including yours, we get eight stations from each database. Here are the 1967 values: Old Database (CRU TS 2.10): 1967 1210 1250 3140 1850 90 0 0 20 100 1670 2170 3090 1967 900 2000 2700 3000 40 0 0 100 200 1300 2700 2640 1967 1120 1630 1730 4750 10 0 0 0 350 890 4460 3910 1967 960 1750 1650 3680 30 0 0 0 440 1090 4100 3630 1967 1440 1570 2960 3280 10 0 0 150 130 1320 2780 2930 1967 210 2350 1340 1890 140 0 0 0 260 840 2940 2110 1967 1090 1090 2580 1220 0 0 0 0 230 2080 2060-9999 1967 260 1280 2570 1970 150 0 0 0 0 770 1850 2500 New database (CRU TS 3.0): 1967 1210 1250 3140 1850 90 0 0 20 100 1670 2170 3090 1967 900 2000 2700 3000 40 0 0 100 200 1300 2700 2640 1967 1120 1630 1730 4750 10 0 0 0 350 890 4460 3910 1967 960 1750 1650 3680 30 0 0 0 440 1090 4100 3630 1967 1440 1570 2960 3280 10 0 0 150 130 1320 2780 2930 1967 210 2350 1340 1890 140 0 0 0 260 840 2940 2110 1967 1090 1090 2580 1220 0 0 0 0 230 2080 2060-9999 1967 260 1280 2570 1970 150 0 0 0 0 770 1850 2500 They are identical. So for April, the 4750 value is present in both databases. This is the station in question: 6632500 -1238 1695 1702 SILVA-PORTA(B.KUITO) ANGOLA 1930 1992 -999 -999.00 In the 2.10 database, this station had a lot of missing data, including 1973 to 1983. This would have excluded it from the processing because a reliable 1961-1990 climatology could not be established. However, in the 3.0 database, most of that missing data has been 'found' - so the station would have been included. If you look at the other 1967 values, I think it's clear that it was a very wet month in some parts of Angola. Stations with precip above 2000 for April 1967 (both databases): 6631800 -1280 1570 1701 NOVA LISBOA ANGOLA 1940 1992 -999 -999.00 1967 900 2000 2700 3000 40 0 0 100 200 1300 2700 2640 6632500 -1238 1695 1702 SILVA-PORTA(B.KUITO) ANGOLA 1930 1992 -999 -999.00 1967 1120 1630 1730 4750 10 0 0 0 350 890 4460 3910 9967150 -1230 1690 1670 CEILUNGA ANGOLA 1943 1972 -999 -999.00 1967 960 1750 1650 3680 30 0 0 0 440 1090 4100 3630 9967170 -1270 1580 1700 CHIANGA ANGOLA 1947 1992 -999 -999.00 1967 1440 1570 2960 3280 10 0 0 150 130 1320 2780 2930 Note that CEILUNGA is too short to have ever made the grade, but the value of 3680 supports the 4750. Similarly, CHIANGA has too much missing data (even for 3.0) to be included. We're left with NOVA LISBOA (3000) and SILVA-PORTA (4750). The real damning piece of evidence? NOVA LISBOA was also plagued with missing data in 2.10, and so also failed to contribute! In essence: two stations with anomalously high rainfall for April 1967 were excluded from 2.10 but included for 3.0, because of additional data that enabled normals to be calculated for them. Two further station in the same area are excluded from both datasets but have similarly high values. I am happy to investigate further if you'd like? I'd also welcome comments as to my reasoning! Cheers Harry On 23 Sep 2008, at 18:29, Daniel Kingston wrote: > Hi Tim > > I realise you are likely to be very busy at the moment, but we have > come across something in the CRU TS 3.0 data set which I hope you > can help out with. > > We have been looking at the monthly precipitation totals over > southern Africa (Angola, to be precise), and have found some rather > large differences between precipitation as specified in the TS 2.1 > data set, and the new TS 3.0 version. Specifically, April 1967 for > the cell 12.75 south, 16.25 east, the monthly total in the TS 2.1 > data set is 251mm, whereas in TS 3.0 it is 476mm. The anomaly does > not only appear in this cell, but also in a number of neighbouring > cells. This is quite a large difference, and the new TS 3.0 value > doesn’t entirely tie in with what we might have expected from the > station-based precip data we have for this area. Would it be > possible for you could have a quick look into this issue? > > Many thanks, > > Daniel. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Dr Daniel Kingston > Post Doctoral Research Associate > Department of Geography > University College London > Gower Street > London > WC1E 6BT > UK > > Email d.kingston@ucl.ac.uk > Tel. +44 (0)20 7679 0510 > > http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/about-the-department/people/research- > staff/daniel-kingston/ > ------------------------------------------------------- > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2866. 2008-09-25 09:53:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 25 09:53:04 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: EU 2009 call and tree rings to: John Grace John sorry about missing question - yes many tree-ring people in the past have "seen" various cycles in tree-ring records and often attributed them to solar forcing . Virtually all of the work lacks rigour in terms of proper testing of he phase of associations or realistic tests of the significance. A decade or so back there was a virtual industry in Russia - driven largely by the political need for palaeo work to demonstrate prognostic value. I am posting a brief review article I wrote some years ago that has a few relevant references. There have been one or two papers since from Russian workers, but again not convincing to my mind. Keith At 08:26 25/09/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith I have the feeling that tree-rings have a really important role in understanding inter-annual variability and response to extreme events. I've just been looking at some data from Andre Granier - he's a physiologist and one of the things he's been doing is measuring tree increments over a few years. Of course there was a big drought France in 2003. The increment was reduced by a bit in 2003 but much more in 2004. Now it's back to normal. I think analysis of the sort of data that dendrochronologists have would help us understand these responses, as one has so many years of record. Did you see the second part of my message- about 11 year cycles? John Keith Briffa wrote: Thanks for the response John. I fully understand the points you make. I was only considering the possibility of a small role for here in any project looking at the role of forests past and future in Europe - I thought that the specific focus on inter-annual to decadal time scales in the call might imply a possibility that tree-rings , and their potential for validating tree process models , and links to larger scale (Dynamic vegetation and GCM) models might represent a useful angle for research. I would still be grateful if you could bare this in mind when participating in the meeting you describe. Very best wishes Keith At 11:09 24/09/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith Next week I'm at the Carboeurope annual meeting, and there is a meeting of the Exec committee when we'll discuss tactics. There is of course the view that we need a 'son of carboeurope' but the funding available is now much less than we have at present. There will be a significant push to develop the atmospheric measurements of GHGs further. Forests might get squeezed out. Among those who support the tree ring stuff is Schultze, but he's retiring now. However, Janssens, Nabuurs, Loustau, Granier, Magnani and others will be at the meeting. I think the model/tree ring stuff is important and could make an excellent proposal, but I'm not sure if it would be competitive with tall towers/aircraft. Can I contact you after this meeting - I'll know how the land lies then. I've been thinking of contacting you about another matter. Do dendrochronologists find a 11- year cycle in tree ring indices? Best wishes John Keith Briffa wrote: John are you planning a submission under 6.1.1.3 (The Global carbon cycle- greenhouse gas budgets) in 2009 call on the Environment (theme 6)? European Commission C(2008) 4598 of 28th August 2008) I genuinely believe that a combined process model/ empirical tree-ring approach could contribute much in mid to high latitudes given the annual to decadal focus here. We would be very willing to join a joint submission. What do you think? best wishes Keith -- 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/ -- Professor John Grace Professor of Environmental Biology School of GeoSciences Crew Building University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH9 3JN phone + 44 (0)131 650 5400 fax + 44 (0)131 662 0478 email jgrace@ed.ac.uk 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 [2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ -- Professor John Grace Professor of Environmental Biology School of GeoSciences Crew Building University of Edinburgh Edinburgh EH9 3JN phone + 44 (0)131 650 5400 fax + 44 (0)131 662 0478 email jgrace@ed.ac.uk 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 [3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5122. 2008-09-25 13:35:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Sear, Chris (CEOSA)" , "Warrilow, David (CEOSA)" , "Munro, Paul (CEOSA)" date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:35:43 +0100 from: "Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA)" subject: CONFIDENTIAL: Response to David Holland to: "Phil Jones" , "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" Dear John and Phil, Defra has received a letter from David Holland regarding the `hockey stick' graph and its handling by the IPCC. We have drafted a short response, and would be grateful if you could read it and send us any comments you have. In particular, we would like to know whether you are happy with the penultimate paragraph (thereby justifying the final comment about advice from Met Office/CRU). Please also let me know if you feel that we should include any more information in defence of the hockey stick, including a more comprehensive discussion of the latest paper by Mann et al. (my instinct is that it would be best to avoid this in order to discourage further communication, but let me know if you feel otherwise). I have attached the letter from David Holland for your information - please treat this as strictly confidential. It would be very helpful if you could provide comments by Wednesday next week so that we can respond before the deadline. Many thanks for your help, Jo Thorpe <<20080925_Letter to Holland.doc>> <> ______________________ Joanna Thorpe Climate Science and Stratospheric Ozone Team Climate, Energy and Ozone: Science and Analysis (CEOSA) Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Zone 3E, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL Tel: 0207 238 3384 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\20080925_Letter to Holland.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Letter from David Holland.TIF" 5269. 2008-09-25 14:44:30 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:44:30 -0400 (EDT) from: AAAS Member Services subject: AAAS Policy Alert -- 25 September 2008 to: AAAS Policy Alert -- September 25, 2008 Budget News Congress returns to session this week to tackle an immense legislative agenda, including extensions of expiring tax cuts, economic stimulus legislation, energy legislation, and above all a government bailout of the nation's financial sector. The federal government's fiscal year (FY) 2009 begins next week (Oct. 1), and with the FY 2009 appropriations process badly stalled, on Tuesday night (9/23) a continuing resolution (CR) was introduced in the House extending funding temporarily at 2008 levels for most federal programs through March 6, 2009. Only the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs would get final FY 2009 appropriations. Thus, proposed 2009 increases for key science agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and DOE's Office of Science could be on hold until next spring. In fact, because the CR counts only regular appropriations in its funding formula, agencies such as NIH and DOE that received supplemental appropriations in June will start out FY 2009 with less money than they currently have. AAAS analyses of R&D in 2009 appropriations for DOD, DHS, and VA will be available shortly on the [1]AAAS R&D web site, as well as a summary update on the status of R&D funding as the federal government enters FY 2009. Campaign News McCain and Obama Health Advisers Square Off. On Sept. 18 Scientists and Engineers for America, in conjunction with AAAS and several other scientific societies, hosted a forum with McCain health policy adviser Jay Khosla and Obama health policy adviser Dora Hughes. Questions from the audience covered topics such as stem cell research and improving healthcare delivery and insurance. The full forum can be viewed via [2]webcast. Obama Names Science Advisers, Revises Technology Webpage. [3]Wired magazine reports that Barack Obama has disclosed the names of his science advisers. The five advisers include Harold Varmus, president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and NIH director under President Clinton; University of Michigan geneticist Gilbert Omenn; Johns Hopkins University malaria researcher Peter Agre; Don Lamb, a University of Chicago astrophysicist; and Sharon Long, a plant biologist at Stanford University. The Obama campaign recently revised its [4]webpage discussing its views on technology issues. The updates include improving mathematics and science education and diversifying the S&T workforce, ethical standards that allow research on stem cells created from unused embryos from in vitro fertilization, and doubling federal spending on basic science over the next ten years. Op-Ed Asks Candidates to Clarify Views on Science. In a Sept. 21 [5]op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, AAAS board chair David Baltimore and AAAS CEO Alan Leshner called upon the presidential and vice presidential candidates to be more specific in their views on science and technology issues. Noting that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's comments on teaching evolution and creationism are "ambiguous" and that her views on climate change blur "the line between scientific facts and ideology," the op-ed calls on all candidates to provide more detailed views on S&T issues during the upcoming debates. Both campaigns have submitted [6]online replies to ScienceDebate 2008's 14 science questions, but the authors say that online responses are "no substitute for direct debate." Report on Making Top Federal S&T Appointments. On Sept. 17 the National Academies released [7]Science and Technology for America's Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration, its quadrennial report advising the next President on filling up to 80 key high-level S&T appointments. The report recommends an accelerated process for appointing and confirming S&T leaders, particularly the President's top advisor on S&T matters, whose role should be returned to a more central place in White House functioning. Former Representative John Edward Porter (IL) chaired the committee that wrote the report. Executive Branch Zerhouni to Step Down as NIH Director. On Sept. 24 Elias A. Zerhouni announced his intention to step down as Director of the National Institutes of Health at the end of October "to pursue writing projects and explore other professional opportunities." He has served as NIH Director since May 2002, and among his many achievements was the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research, begun in 2003. A detailed list of those accomplishments can be found in the [8]news release announcing his departure. ESA Comment Period Extended. The Administration has [9]announced that the public comment period on the proposed rule change to the Endangered Species Act consultation process has been extended until October 15. The proposed changes would eliminate independent scientific reviews of federal actions that may affect endangered species, leaving it to each agency to determine for itself whether its proposed projects would threaten protected species (Policy Alert, 8/13/08). As we noted last week (Policy Alert, 9/17/08), AAAS has provided [10]comments taking issue with the proposals. New Nanotechnology Centers Announced. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have provided a total of $38 million to establish [11]two Centers for the Environmental Implications of Nanotechnology (CEINs). Led by the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) and Duke University, each CEIN will work as a network, connected to multiple research organizations, industry, and government agencies, to study how nanomaterials interact with the environment and human health. FDA Releases Genetically Modified Animal Guidelines, Hires New Staff. The Food and Drug Administration released draft [12]guidelines last week on genetic modification of animals. The purpose of such research is often to develop safer or healthier foods or to produce medically useful substances. The guidelines are open for comment until November 18. In other news, the FDA's recent hiring push has succeeded in bringing in more than 1,300 professional staffers. New Commerce Department Advisory Committee Meets. The Emerging Technology and Research Advisory Committee (ETRAC) for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will hold its [13]first meeting on Sept. 23. The newly organized ETRAC "advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on technical questions that affect controls on research and emerging technology activities, including those related to deemed exports." Energy and Climate Change Developments Climate Change Science Program Releases New Reports. On Sept. 8 the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) released its final version of [14]Synthesis and Assessment Product Report (SAP) 5.1. The report, Uses and Limitations of Observations, Data, Forecasts, and Other Projections in Decision Support for Selected Sectors and Regions, analyses support capability for policy areas such as public health, agriculture, and air quality. On Sept. 4 CCSP also released its final version of [15]SAP 3.2, Climate Projections Based on Emissions Scenarios for Long-Lived and Short-Lived Radiatively Active Trace Gases and Future Climate Impacts of Short-Lived Radiatively Active Gases and Aerosols. Energy Efficiency Report Released. The American Physical Society released the report "[16]Energy Future: Think Efficiency," which outlines priorities for the next administration's energy policies, both for the immediate future and for decades ahead. The report highlights needed and high-return areas of energy efficiency R&D. Elsewhere New Coalition Seeks to Shore Up Public Confidence in Vaccines. Twenty-two medical groups have formed a coalition, the Immunization Alliance, to bolster public confidence in the importance of routine immunizations, following recent outbreaks of measles in several cities and high-profile reports of parents forgoing vaccinations for their children. British Science Adviser John Beddington Speaks at AAAS. John Beddington, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the British government, spoke on "Science and Innovation in a Changing World" at AAAS on Sept. 17, his first public address in the U.S. since being [17]appointed Jan. 1, 2008, to succeed Sir David King. The British Embassy co-sponsored the event. While the British government spends substantially less on basic research than the United States, the United Kingdom has a highly productive scientific community that is being encouraged to collaborate in new ways with industry at home and with global partners abroad, according to Beddington. British Royal Society Official Resigns Over Creationism Controversy. Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society in London, resigned from his position last week after some comments he made were construed as being supportive of teaching creationism as science. Reiss said that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have...[and] have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time." He also said that the approach to teaching evolution in this way depends on the "comfort of the teacher...I don't believe that such teaching is easy." Despite his caveats, some British media outlets and scientists accused Reiss of advocating the teaching of creationism in science class, and the Royal Society subsequently put out a statement saying that Reiss resigned because his comments were "open to misinterpretation" which "has led to damage to the Society's reputation." Australian Government Issues First License to Create Cloned Human Embryos for Stem Cells. Almost two years after the Australian government lifted its ban on cloning human embryos to obtain embryonic stem cells, it has issued its first license for the practice to Sydney IVF. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Publisher: Alan I. Leshner Editor: Steve Nelson Contributors: Lucas Adin, Joanne Carney, Mark Frankel, Erin Heath, Kei Koizumi, Shirley Malcom, Molly McElroy, Al Teich, Richard Weibl, Kasey White NOTE: The AAAS Policy Alert is a newsletter provided to AAAS Members to inform them of developments in science and technology policy that may be of interest. Information in the Policy Alert is gathered from published news reports, unpublished documents, and personal communications. Although the information contained in this newsletter is regarded as reliable, it is provided only for the convenience and private use of our members. Comments and suggestions regarding the Policy Alert are welcome. Please write to alert@aaas.org. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ This email was sent to P.JONES@UEA.AC.UK To get on and off our e-mail lists, please [18]change your e-mail preferences here. If you need additional help, please write to memuser@aaas.org . AAAS / Science 1200 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 202-326-6417 Toll Free in the U.S.: 866-434-(AAAS) 2227 E-mail: [19]membership@aaas.org Science International Bateman House 82-88 Hills Road Cambridge CB2 1LQ United Kingdom Privacy Policy: [20]http://www.sciencemag.org/help/readers/privacy.dtl [ AAAS / Science does not endorse any 3rd party products or services advertised here. ] © 2008 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All Rights Reserved. If you can not click on the e-mail preferences link above, copy and paste this link: http://www.info-aaas.org/util/opt_out.jsp?e=2O_odGyng9kHXsR_lt2roFsdE6QU.A&s=2a6BBFyfs&v=3 UlwInrCLfRNFlg..A One pixel image 2577. 2008-09-25 15:24:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 25 15:24:48 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CONFIDENTIAL: Response to: "Mitchell, John FB (Chief Scientist)" John, I've called Jo to say I'm happy with their response. I'll also delete this email after I've sent it. We've had a request for all our internal UEA emails that have any bearing on the subject, so apologies for brevity. See you in November! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5026. 2008-09-25 16:25:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Sep 25 16:25:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: plans for a FP7-proposal under the SPACE call to: "Klein Tank, Albert \(KNMI\)" Albert, It did say 1-3M (and up to 5M). I like EURO4M! We can still go for 3M Euros. Cheers Phil At 16:21 25/09/2008, you wrote: Phil, Thanks. To discuss this further next week is why I wanted to sent out this message today. I like the EURO3M, but in that case we should go for 4 million, because it is fashion to say "4Monitoring". We can discuss the Friday afternoon chair next week. There will be other volunteers, in particular if the session is shorter anyway. Cheers, Albert. ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:12 PM To: Klein Tank, Albert (KNMI) Subject: Re: plans for a FP7-proposal under the SPACE call Albert, Happy to be involved. I see us more in WP1 and possibly helping in WP3. We can talk about this more next week in Amsterdam. I realise why I didn't find this call - I only looked at the FP7 Environment call! Spent my usual 5 mins thinking about the acronym. EUROM is a possibility. It sounds better in English. I did think of EURO3M, but this is the money we'll be asking for! Earlier today I printed off the booklet for next week's meetings. The emails about people not showing up don't seem that important. On the Friday, you are down to chair the morning and Joanna the afternoon. It was suggested that you should switch, but you're both talking in UC2 in the afternoon. I'll see if Reino or Martine will still be there. I can start doing it in the afternoon, but I have a 17.20 flight home. Effie Kostopoulou told me she would likely not be coming, but this won't be a problem as she was the last speaker. Christos will be there and he may have her talk, though. See you next week. I should be at Schipol at 08.30 on the Monday. Cheers Phil At 13:56 25/09/2008, you wrote: Dear all, Following a meeting at ECMWF and subsequent discussions with members of the former READY consortium, KNMI has decided to take the lead in a new proposal responding to the FP7-SPACE call. The new proposal is on the topic "Monitoring of climate change issues" in the context of GMES (now Kopernikus). The text of this call (published on 28 August 2008) is included at the bottom of this email. According to our information, the Commission is aiming at two small-medium size projects. We aim at a collaborative project of 3 or 4 years with EC contribution of EUR 3 million. The idea is to combine regional observation datasets and regional reanalyses for monitoring climate change. An independent but related proposal lead by ECMWF is in preparation focusing on global reanalyses. Submission deadline is 4 December 2008. A one-stage submission procedure will be followed. This email is intended to ask your response on several issues below. Please reply before 5 October. Best regards, Albert. ***Consortium: The proposed consortium consists of: KNMI (coordinator), Met Office, SMHI, Meteo France, DWD, Meteo Swiss, NMA, UEA and URV. These 9 partners form a mixture of those attending the meeting at ECMWF and members of the former READY consortium. They provide the necessary expertise for both regional observation datasets and regional reanalysis. ***Project name: To avoid using the emotionally charged acronym EURRA, I suggest to choose EROM - European Reanalysis and Observations for Monitoring climate change. Note that MORE would have been elegant, but this is already in use for another ERA-net project. ***Project structure: The project structure should reflect that we combine two different but complementary approaches: regional observation datasets of ECVs on the one hand and model based regional reanalysis on the other. We do this in order to deliver the best possible and most complete (gridded) climate change monitoring services for Europe. As a result, I suggest the following WPs: WP1: Regional observation datasets WP1.1: Developing gridded datasets based on long term station series (for Europe and sub regions) WP1.2: Data coordination (with GMES-ISOWG, GCOS, ECSN, ACRE, MEDARE, etc.) and access to national archives WP1.3: Quality control (improve data quality and homogeneity) WP2: Regional reanalysis WP2.1: Dynamical reanalysis for the atmosphere (using NAE and Hirlam regional models nested in ERA) WP2.2: 2D downscaling for the surface/near surface (added value through additional observations and over orography) WP2.3: Improvement of capability for reanalyses (better basic input) WP3: Tailored information and climate change products (for future GMES services using output from WP1 & WP2) WP3.1: Integrated ECV data products (providing best possible and most complete/up-to-date descriptions of the evolution of the Earth system) WP3.2: Climate Indicator Bulletins (providing scientific input for policy implementation and near-real time reporting for emerging extreme events) WP3.3: Validation and dissemination (including stakeholder involvement and responding to user feedback) WP4: Project management, coordination and sustainability Please comment on this structure and identify your potential role in each work package. As indicated above, a clear link exists with the global reanalyses proposal which is in preparation by a consortium lead by ECMWF. The other link is with the EUROGRID proposal which is in preparation by ECSN members for the EUMETNET Council (as a follow-up to S-EUROGRID). ***Time schedule: From today, there are 10 weeks to go before the submission deadline. This means that your contributions are needed soon. The good news is that for many parts of the proposal we can make use of the former READY proposal (see attachment). Furthermore, earlier experience shows that rather than focusing solely on a detailed workplan, it may be better to spend time lobbying our ideas. Based on your replies I will provide an action list soon. <> ***Call text: SPA.2009.1.1.02 Monitoring of climate change issues (extending core service activities) Information about Earth physical parameters must sufficiently describe the current status of the Earth environment from regional to global scales, and its evolution in the short to medium-term. A wide range of space- and time-scales has to be considered. Whilst the GMES core services already provide valuable product portfolios containing many of the Essential Climate Variables (ECV) as for instance identified by the second Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) report 2003, specific tailoring of information packages for monitoring of climate change has still to be addressed in GMES. Proposals to integrate core services products and to extend their activities for such information generation or to demonstrate how this could be achieved in the most appropriate way are invited. In particular, the resultant "information package" should include: Tailored information and products to assist climate change research to incorporate the monitored essential climate variables such as, for instance, sea level changes, cryosphere (snow cover and ice), sea surface temperature, evolution of atmospheric characteristics and composition, clouds, land cover and vegetation, deforestation, erosion, hydrological changes, soil moisture trends etc. Provision of reliable, up-to-date scientific input (especially through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) for the elaboration and implementation of European and international policies and strategies on the environment and society, including in the EU climate adaptation strategy addressing European, national, regional and local levels. This "information package" should be based on the generation of time series of observation datasets and reanalyses of past observational data enabling adequate descriptions of the status and evolution of the Earth system components. The development of the capacity required for such climate analyses, focused on a service oriented approach, including software tools and instruments for the integrated analysis of different spatial and time scales, is encouraged and should be tailored towards future GMES services24. In particular, proposals should ensure that GMES Services, and especially those on marine, land and atmosphere monitoring, which include or will include in the near future a global component by design, as well as centres involved in reanalysis of large time series of data, are involved in this "information package" provision. Links with GEOSS and full compliance with the GCOS requirements are also valuable pre-requisites. Any additional space-based observation data necessary to the development of each project will have to be detailed in the proposals. Space data will be made available through the ESA GSC-DA grant to FP7 Fast Track Services and Pilot Services from the first Call. However, it is not excluded that some data could also be made available for the project in this topic by ESA on the basis of the GSCDA grant (details in Section I, Chapter 1.3). Such requirements and their coherence with the existing DAP of the GSC-DA have to be clearly indicated. Funding schemes and projects size: small-medium size Collaborative Projects are expected, requiring typically an EC contribution of EUR 1 to 3 million (with upper eligibility limit of EUR 5 000 000 Community requested contribution); also small Coordination and Support Actions are possible. Expected impact: Projects will be expected to contribute to establishing a data archive of systematic observation data related to the climate system, for a continuous record of essential climate variables coherent with UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requirements. Projects will be expected to contribute to the consistency of such a dataset, as well as to a sustainable and transparent access to such data for global climate scientific and operational communities. Projects will be also expected to improve the structure and coordination of the entities involved in the processing and delivery of climate change relevant dataset, in order to avoid dispersion and duplication of activities and to pave the way for a sustainable provision compliant with the requirements of climate analysis communities. 24 It should be noted that development and research on specific earth observation and assessment tools, as well as environmental models underpinning climate change are undertaken in FP7 theme 6 Environment (including climate change). Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2748. 2008-09-25 16:51:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" date: Thu Sep 25 16:51:02 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: FW: Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Keith, Looking at CA, I can see why McIntyre wants what you sent to Scott. Mike has deleted all the post 1960 values in the MXD data and infilled them with RegEM. What he wants to do is to get the original from you and then show the differences between Mike's infilled and what was originally there. Maybe you've realised this! All Mike's series are up, along with many pieces of code in Matlab. CA spend much of their time complaining about the code. Remind me never to send them any of my code! Cheers Phil At 16:03 25/09/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: Tim, I am happy for you to chat with Keith in regards what we actually hold, and what we actually sent (or did not send) to Mike Mann. I think it reasonable to assume that the requester is primarily interested in the data used as supporting information for the Mann study regardless of where it came from; however, we do have an obligation to provide advice and guidance so that a straight refusal and referral to whatever organisation Rutherford is associated with (should the information used by Mann not come from us) would not be appropriate without some clarification of what the requester actually wishes to see. However, first job is to determine what we have, and what we sent to whom! Cheers, Dave >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [[1]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:10 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Cc: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: Re: FW: Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] > >well, hope you had a good time, Dave! > >I'll talk with Keith to see what we have on this topic. > >I do know that I didn't send any data or information directly to Mike >Mann for the work that Stephen McIntyre discusses. I expect (though >I don't "know") that Mann obtained the data from Scott Rutherford, to >whom we did send some data and information for an earlier study. The >information (but not the data) sent to Rutherford for this earlier >study is already described on my webpage: ><[2]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/mxdtrw.htm> >under the subsection Rutherford et al. (2005, Journal of Climate). > >Given that I don't know for sure that the data Mann used are >identical to the data that we hold and sent to Rutherford, I'm not >sure whether we are obliged to search our files to see if we can find >the data than were sent to Rutherford? Of course, if we tell >McIntyre this, he'll just submit an FOI for the data we sent >Rutherford. It was about 6 years ago, so I'm not sure I'd be able to >identify the files for sure anyway. > >Cheers > >Tim >At 11:00 22/09/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >>Folks, >>Just got back from hols and picked this up - unfortunately, in all >>the email I receive, my cover for my FOI duties didn't pick this one >>up... Have any of you responded to Mr. McIntyre directly as >yet in any way? >>I will provide the appropriate acknowledgement of the request - >>deadline is 8 October.... >> >>Cheers, Dave >> >> >>---------- >>From: Steve McIntyre [[3]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >>Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 3:55 AM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Cc: Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV) >>Subject: Schweingruber Series >> >>Dear Mr Palmer, >> >>In the Supporting Information to Mann et al (PNAS 2008), in >>particular >><[4]http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSup>plemental/SD1.xls>[5 ]http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/ >0805721105.DCSupplemental/SD1.xls >>, a number of "Schweingruber" series are listed, with nomenclature >>such as schweingruber_mxdabd_grid11, which I presume were provided >>by Keith Briffa or Tim Osborn of the UEA. >> >>Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act and/or Environmental >>Information REgulations, whichever is aplicable, would you please >>provide me with a digital version of these data sets in the form >>provided to Dr Mann, together with any relevant meta-data, manuals >>or literature describing the grid locations of the series and the >>method of their calculation. >> >>Thank you for your attention, >> >>Stephen McIntyre >> > >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: [6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >sunclock: [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3871. 2008-09-26 12:13:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:13:28 +0100 from: "Flack Chris Mrs \(SCI\)" subject: [Env.all] Get involved in climate action - 9 Oct student event at to: , Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C91FC8.E3D35C3D" From: Alexandra Woodsworth [mailto:a.woodsworth@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 September 2008 11:15 To: Flack Chris Mrs (SCI) Hello Chris, EnvSoc are hosting the following event at UEA - would you be able to forward this to staff, PG and u ndergrad lists? Many thanks, Alexandra Rising Tide kicks off a year of climate action Get involved! UEA student event, 9 October, 1PM Tired of watching politicians and corporations screw up the planet? Think it's time to put a liveable future ahead of corporate profits and the growth economy? (Where's that got us? Credit crunch and climate crisis, that's where.) Uninspired by petitions and letter-writing and want to do something a bit more proactive? Then get involved with Norwich Rising Tide! EnvSoc are hosting Norwich Rising Tide in a special event for UEA students looking to get involved in the climate action movement. We'll show a short film, talk about what kinds of campaigns we're working on in Norwich, tell you how you can get involved locally and in national events like the Climate Camp, and get cracking on planning our first action of the term. Everyone is welcome, whatever your school, year or previous experience. See you there! When: Thursday, 9 October, 1 - 2 PM Where: Union House, room 1.33 More info: [1]norwich@risingtide.org.uk / 07961 917535 www.risingtide.org.uk/norwich Rising Tide takes creative direct action to confront the root causes of climate change, and promotes equitable, community run solutions. We are part of an international grassroots network that joins the dots between fossil fuels, social injustice, capitalism and climate chaos. _______________________________________________ Env.all mailing list Env.all@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.all 1058. 2008-09-26 14:41:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:41:28 +0100 from: Keith Briffa subject: Fwd: UNcertainty to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk,Phil Jones IN CONFIDENCE >From: "Tim Jickells" >To: , > "'J Andrews'" , > "'Alastair Grant'" , > "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" , > "'Andrew Watkinson'" , > "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" >Subject: UNcertainty >Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:33:39 +0100 >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 >Thread-Index: Ackfy7hdOeryv5qmRPu42iohCoUO0Q== > >I attach an attempt at trying to write up the discussion we had on >Wednesday about a big idea for the VC for ENV. I have called it >Uncertainty but given the possible resultant strap line of "we don't >know what we're doing" I think we need a better title!. I have tried >to imagine something that could stretch across much of ENV and in >the process I have strayed into areas so far beyond my knowledge >that there are heresies in here of considerable scale I suspect. I >beg your indulgence and invite you to correct these and also >consider if you still think this idea has merit in the cold light of >day. I have aimed to keep this short and of course the devil is in >the detail, but any pitch for the funding will initially deal with >the idea not the detail. If there is a consensus to move this >forward then we'll need to think how to do that. >Tim > >Professor Tim Jickells >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ UK >tel 01603593117, fax 01603 591327 > -- 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\Uncertainty2.doc" 3329. 2008-09-26 17:03:28 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Sep 26 17:03:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: UNcertainty to: Keith Briffa , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Keith, Tim, Just a few words to follow up our discussions. I'll be checking during next week, and you can also bring anything later out with you on Tuesday to Amsterdam. Emphasis for me is still Impacts (especially water), as this plays to CRU strengths in the obs data, access to model output (and UKCIP08) and the use of both in impacts models. We have some experience in the latter, much more than others in ENV. One key aspect is being at the start of impact projects, so we can inform the sector of what is possible observationally and what the models can and can't do. Our experience in this comes from all the ECLAT workshops. Water was always the most organized of the sectors, as they were used to running catchment models. In some EPSRC projects we are looking at building design - future proofing the latest designs. In all these sectors when people consider climate change, they initially go to the people they usually deal with - engineers, architects.designers etc. Climate Change then has to fit in with what people normally do. Cheers Phil At 14:41 26/09/2008, Keith Briffa wrote: IN CONFIDENCE From: "Tim Jickells" To: , "'J Andrews'" , "'Alastair Grant'" , "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" , "'Andrew Watkinson'" , "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" Subject: UNcertainty Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:33:39 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ackfy7hdOeryv5qmRPu42iohCoUO0Q== I attach an attempt at trying to write up the discussion we had on Wednesday about a big idea for the VC for ENV. I have called it Uncertainty but given the possible resultant strap line of "we don't know what we're doing" I think we need a better title!. I have tried to imagine something that could stretch across much of ENV and in the process I have strayed into areas so far beyond my knowledge that there are heresies in here of considerable scale I suspect. I beg your indulgence and invite you to correct these and also consider if you still think this idea has merit in the cold light of day. I have aimed to keep this short and of course the devil is in the detail, but any pitch for the funding will initially deal with the idea not the detail. If there is a consensus to move this forward then we'll need to think how to do that. Tim Professor Tim Jickells School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK tel 01603593117, fax 01603 591327 -- 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/ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 508. 2008-09-29 11:20:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:20:02 +0100 from: "Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)" subject: RE: UNcertainty to: "Jickells Tim Prof \(ENV\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Andrews Julian Prof \(ENV\)" , "Grant Alastair Prof \(ENV\)" , "Watkinson Andrew Prof \(ENV\)" , "Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)" Tim, Thank you very much for putting some initial thoughts together .... I really like the ideas in here and think we could take them on at the right scale and intensity of activity if we had the funds. We need a really dramatic title to catch the scale and importance of what we are doing. I'm hopeless at this sort of stuff but something like `Global Earth Systems Laboratory?' ....er..... I will copy the original to Bill - as he's got his gala dinner tonight, this might give him something to work on. Jacquie ___________________________________________________________________________________________ From: Tim Jickells [mailto:t.jickells@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 September 2008 12:34 To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Andrews Julian Prof (ENV); Grant Alastair Prof (ENV); Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV); Watkinson Andrew Prof (ENV); Turner Kerry Prof (ENV) Subject: UNcertainty I attach an attempt at trying to write up the discussion we had on Wednesday about a big idea for the VC for ENV. I have called it Uncertainty but given the possible resultant strap line of "we don't know what we're doing" I think we need a better title!. I have tried to imagine something that could stretch across much of ENV and in the process I have strayed into areas so far beyond my knowledge that there are heresies in here of considerable scale I suspect. I beg your indulgence and invite you to correct these and also consider if you still think this idea has merit in the cold light of day. I have aimed to keep this short and of course the devil is in the detail, but any pitch for the funding will initially deal with the idea not the detail. If there is a consensus to move this forward then we'll need to think how to do that. Tim Professor Tim Jickells School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK tel 01603593117, fax 01603 591327 3224. 2008-09-29 20:39:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:39:05 -0600 from: Eugene Wahl subject: Request Re: simple remake of IPCC Figure to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim: I'm working with David Anderson, my supervisor here at NOAA-Paleo, and others higher up in NOAA on paleoclimate information to go into the US Government's official overview document on climate change research. It is called the "Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis Product", and is like a kind-of US version of the IPCC SPM--Working Group 1. The goal is to have this ready for the new government administration as early next year as possible. We are trying to decide concerning a figure to summarize the high-resolution NH paleo-climate record for the past 1000 years -- the last version of the document had MBH 99 superposed with the CO2 recored for the same time period. One thought that came down to Dave and myself from others was to use the new Mann et al, 2008, Figure 3 over the past millennium or some part of it. Dave and I think the IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 6:10c is a better representation of the last millennium from a reconstruction standpoint, especially representing the uncertainties involved. CO2 would just be left out. [We also considered IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 14d as even better, as it shows the EMICs mostly follow the middle range of the reconstructions' overlap, except that those that don't have anthropogenic forcing deviate more and more cooler after the mid-20th century. This coupling of the forcings-driven EMICs with the reconstruction record we find much more powerful than a superposition of one or more reconstructions and the CO2 curve. However, this suggestion will not go for the synthesis product, as it is considered too abstract for that situation.] Indeed, even Figure 6:10c as it is may be too complex for the target audience we want to reach with the synthesis product. In light of the foregoing, the question Dave and I would like to ask you is this: would it be feasible to ask you to recreate Figure 6:10c with just three lines? These three lines would be a heavy mid line of the temperature anomalies where the highest percentage of overlap occurs for each year, and the 10% and 90% overlap lines (all overlap percentages defined exactly as in the original IPCC graphics). It is our understanding that you created Figure 6:10c, which is where this request comes from. Alternatively, could you provide us with these three time series, or direct us how to extract them from the the IPCC c. 6 archives we keep here? We understand that you are quite busy and we want to minimize any impact on you in this request. Please let us know what you think. Here is hoping you are well, and that the weather there not yet to coolish. I get a weekly commentary on nature and spirituality written from near UEA ("Word from Wormingford" it is called), and often think of you-all there as I read it. Please also say hello to Phil and Keith when you see them. -- Peace, Gene Dr. Eugene R. Wahl Physical Scientist NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC/Paleoclimate Branch 325 Broadway Street Boulder, CO 80305 PHONE: 303-497-6297 FAX: 303-497-6513 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html 2657. 2008-09-30 15:51:38 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Sep 30 15:51:38 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Remake of IPCC Figure -- redux to: "Eugene.R.Wahl" Hi Gene, to replot the figure as you suggest is feasible for me. Are you sure about this though? It has always struck me (and Keith, with whom I devised this way of visualising the published results) as a rather ad-hoc approach and subject to various lines of attack (e.g. should we really combine reconstructions that represent rather different things [annual vs. summer, full NH vs. land], what does it mean if the published uncertainty ranges overlap from multiple studies if some of those studies have overlapping input proxy series and others have few overlaps?). I don't want to put you off, and our IPCC chapter co-authors didn't seem put off despite our (Keith and mine) prior expectations that they would. I just wanted to make sure that you're clear about the possible criticisms. Finally (I'm sure you know this anyway!), note that post-AR4 studies are not, of course(!), represented here. e.g. Mann et al. 2008, Juckes et al. 2007, others? Is that a problem? Thanks for your best wishes. Things are ok here in Norwich, September has been mild and I even got up to the beach (north Norfolk) a couple of times! New students are now here and so I'll be spending much time teaching during the next 2 months. I have a new PhD student who will probably be studying blocking circulation patterns and whether they are altered by climate change. If you ever want to pay us a visit (especially if you're coming to the UK for other meetings) here in Norwich, then you'd be very welcome. Tim At 06:26 30/09/2008, you wrote: Hi Tim: Woops...here is a correction. I meant the 10% overlap lines on both the high and low sides (rather than the 10% and 90% overlap lines). This can be 5% overlap on the high and low sides if that makes better sense. Also, re: the mid line...it occurs to me that there could be temperature "ties" for the highest percentage of overlap for any given year, so in such a case, I'm imagining that the mid line would be in the middle of such a range of overlap. Would that be a sufficient tiebreaking rule to deal with all cases? Thanks, Gene Eugene Wahl wrote: Hi Tim: I'm working with David Anderson, my supervisor here at NOAA-Paleo, and others higher up in NOAA on paleoclimate information to go into the US Government's official overview document on climate change research. It is called the "Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis Product", and is like a kind-of US version of the IPCC SPM--Working Group 1. The goal is to have this ready for the new government administration as early next year as possible. We are trying to decide concerning a figure to summarize the high-resolution NH paleo-climate record for the past 1000 years -- the last version of the document had MBH 99 superposed with the CO2 recored for the same time period. One thought that came down to Dave and myself from others was to use the new Mann et al, 2008, Figure 3 over the past millennium or some part of it. Dave and I think the IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 6:10c is a better representation of the last millennium from a reconstruction standpoint, especially representing the uncertainties involved. CO2 would just be left out. [We also considered IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 14d as even better, as it shows the EMICs mostly follow the middle range of the reconstructions' overlap, except that those that don't have anthropogenic forcing deviate more and more cooler after the mid-20th century. This coupling of the forcings-driven EMICs with the reconstruction record we find much more powerful than a superposition of one or more reconstructions and the CO2 curve. However, this suggestion will not go for the synthesis product, as it is considered too abstract for that situation.] Indeed, even Figure 6:10c as it is may be too complex for the target audience we want to reach with the synthesis product. In light of the foregoing, the question Dave and I would like to ask you is this: would it be feasible to ask you to recreate Figure 6:10c with just three lines? These three lines would be a heavy mid line of the temperature anomalies where the highest percentage of overlap occurs for each year, and the 10% and 90% overlap lines (all overlap percentages defined exactly as in the original IPCC graphics). It is our understanding that you created Figure 6:10c, which is where this request comes from. Alternatively, could you provide us with these three time series, or direct us how to extract them from the the IPCC c. 6 archives we keep here? We understand that you are quite busy and we want to minimize any impact on you in this request. Please let us know what you think. Here is hoping you are well, and that the weather there not yet to coolish. I get a weekly commentary on nature and spirituality written from near UEA ("Word from Wormingford" it is called), and often think of you-all there as I read it. Please also say hello to Phil and Keith when you see them. 4287. 2008-09-30 18:54:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: Anne Stark , "David C. Bader" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:54:46 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: First draft of press release to: "Thorne, Peter" , Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear folks, Many thanks for your comments on the "fact sheet", which I'll try to modify tomorrow. LLNL intends to issue a press release when our paper is published later in the week. Here is a second draft of the press release. This is my modified version of the first draft, which was written by Anne Stark in our Public Affairs Office. As you can see, the press release focuses on the contributions of LLNL scientists to the study. I'd be grateful for any suggestions as to how we might expand the focus. One possibility is that other institutions might want to issue their own releases, which would emphasize how this emerging reconciliation of modeled and observed tropical temperature changes was facilitated by the development of new observational estimates of surface and tropospheric temperature change. In case your home institution wants to issue its own press release, it would be good to coordinate this with Anne, whom I'm copying on this email. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_IJC_Sept_2008_v3.doc" 5096. 2008-10-01 09:48:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:48:31 -0400 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: recognize this?! to: Keith Briffa , Tim Osborn Hi Keith and Tim, I have quickly read through the Esper paper and have the following comments to make. First, I hadn't seen it before, so it is all new to me. It is certainly true that Jan did not do a proper job citing Briffa et al. (1992). That was a clear mistake, especially given that Douglass (1929) was cited for crossdating. I also note that Jan did not cite Osborn et al. (1997) on adjusting the variance in series for sample size changes. That too was an clear oversight given that Frank et al. (2007) was cited. Hopefully, neither was done intentionally. I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt on that unless it is a chronic problem in their publications. The latter issue of variance adjustment is also relevant to the discussion concerning spatial homogeneity or lack thereof. Am I correct in assuming that some form of variance adjustment was made to the series used in the AR4 report? I haven't read the report closely enough to recall if that was done. If it was done, that would tend to force the data towards an appearance of greater homogeneity, I would guess, hence the relative stability of the bootstrap intervals, etc.. In any case, I do tend to agree with Jan that nothing very definitive can be said about the spatial homogeneity of the putative MWP until we get more records to look at that truly express temperature and not something else. The whole issue of whether or not the MWP was more spatially heterogeneous or not is a huge "red herring" in my opinion anyway. A growing body of evidence clearly shows that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times. The problem is that we have been too fixated on temperature, especially hemispheric and global average temperature, and IPCC is enormously guilty of that. So the fact that evidence for "warming" in tree-ring records during the putative MWP is not as strong and spatially homogeneous as one would like might simply be due to the fact that it was bloody dry too in certain regions, with more spatial variability imposed on growth due to regional drought variability even if it were truly as warm as today. The Calvin cycle and evapotranspiration demand surely prevail here: warm-dry means less tree growth and a reduced expression of what the true warmth was during the MWP. That is my take on the Esper and Frank paper, with obvious editorial comments included as well. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Sep 29, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:50:59 +0100 To: Keith Briffa <[2]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> From: Tim Osborn <[3]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk> Subject: recognize this?! Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [6]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 [7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1523. 2008-10-01 15:16:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Phil Jones" date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:16:20 +0100 from: "Jenkins, Geoff" subject: RE: Review to: "C G Kilsby" Thanks, Chris. In principle they have the power to tell Defra: these projections arent good enough, go back and modify, start again etc Being blunt: which of these reviewers will give the best outcome? ie arent too academic (so wont recommend their pet algorithm over yours), can be practical and pragmatic about what we can supply to users, understand what they want and can accept etc? we are asking them to confirm the projections are credible and fit-for-purpose, not perfect. Suggest we give say 2 preffered names eg 1 modeller and 1 intelligent user, and 2 backups. covering the both the stochastic rainfall bit (ie UNEW) and the WG proper (ie UEA) Confusion? Delay? Reduced confidence? Yep, all of the above. Saw Jon Taylor yesterday. He has just come back from a BAe 146 campaign in Alaska to look at radiation over ice and snow, and is now heading for Jordan to do the same over deserts. Bastard! Cheers Geoff ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: C G Kilsby [mailto:C.G.Kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] Sent: 01 October 2008 14:38 To: Jenkins, Geoff Cc: Phil Jones Subject: RE: Review Phil, Geoff agreed - probably will be a major pain. Not at all clear to me what remit/powers of the review will have, and therefore considerable risk of confusion/delay/reduced confidence in products etc. Anyway: possible reviewers for WG: -Semenov at Long Ashton and/or Lenny Smith both bid for the WG work and therefore doubtful whether they can offer truly independent views. - Rob Wilby is an obvious choice, although also not truly independent - he does at least understand the business well, and in the past has been all to ready to offer criticisms! - Chris Onof a possibility, very exp in rainfall modelling, although not too up to speed on climate side - Nick Reynard is a major user of this sort of stuff, as are some of his team (Alison Kay, Christel Prudhomme) - overseas - Linda Mearns at NCAR? - Paolo Burlando (ETHZ), Alberto Montanari (Bologna) - both familiar with rainfall models/climate change - others less useful: (Bardossy (too busy), Adri Buishand (too thorough and conservative!) Chris 5166. 2008-10-02 11:37:10 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Thorne, Peter" , Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , Anne Stark , "David C. Bader" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:37:10 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Final version of press release to: santer1@llnl.gov Dear folks, Here is the (hopefully final!) version of the press release for our IJoC paper. It just keeps on mutating... There are some small but important changes relative to the version I sent out yesterday evening. The most important change is that we've now removed explicit reference to the UR/UAH group. Some of you were concerned that this explicit reference was unnecessary and provocative. With some careful rewording, Anne found a nice way of finessing this issue. There are also some changes on the second page, in the paragraph beginning "The second reason for the reconciliation..." These changes were suggested by Peter Thorne. The intent here was to convey the message that the new surface and upper-air datasets we've used have helped us to better understand and quantify the "structural uncertainties" in the observations. Please shout loud, quickly, and often if there's something in the revised press release that you cannot live with. If not, I suggest that we should go with this version. Still no word from IJoC on the precise date of online publication. Looks like it will be either tomorrow or early next week. Glenn MacGregor is checking on this. Glenn informed me today that the print version of our paper will appear in the November issue of IJoC, together with the Douglass et al. IJoC paper! I think that Glenn held back the print publication of Douglass et al. (remember that their paper was published online 10 months ago, in December 2007!) so that our paper and theirs would appear in the same issue of the IJoC. I suspect that Douglass et al. are not going to be very happy about IJoC's decision. So be prepared for possible unpleasantness... Now back to work on the fact sheet. With best regards, and many thanks again for your helpful input on the press release, 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Santer_IJC_Oct_2008_v10.doc" 2459. 2008-10-02 13:40:06 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:40:06 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Dear Michael, Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing "David Holland". Everything we found was cc'd to you and/or Dave Palmer, which you'll already have. Best wishes Tim At 08:36 02/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) wrote: >Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, > >Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to any >personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so >and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. >Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. > >We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that >included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the >Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me >copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr >Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other >which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to >other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators >worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any >replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any >exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. > >We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to >call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that >we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to >under the Act. > >Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on >leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up >on him about progress after that date. > >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 > > > > 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 4569. 2008-10-02 13:53:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:53:22 +0100 from: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" subject: RE: Holland - Data Protection Act Request to: "Tim Osborn" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Tim at al, Many thanks for checking. I am seeing Dave at 4.00 today and hopefully we can put this one to bed. Regards Michael Michael McGarvie Director of Faculty Administration Faculty of Science Room 0.22B University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ tel: 01603 593229 fax: 01603 593045 m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:40 PM To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) Cc: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: Holland - Data Protection Act Request Dear Michael, Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing "David Holland". Everything we found was cc'd to you and/or Dave Palmer, which you'll already have. Best wishes Tim At 08:36 02/09/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD) wrote: >Dear Keith, Tim and Phil, > >Mr Holland has submitted a Data Protection Act request for access to any >personal data relating to him that UEA holds. He is entitled to do so >and I have met with David Palmer yesterday to discuss the way forward. >Funnily enough, I had a hunch that he might do this. > >We have a set of all the email exchanges over the FOIA requests that >included Dave and I will review these with Dave to see what under the >Act Mr Holland is entitled to. I am writing to ask if you could send me >copies of emails and letters that any of you sent which includes Mr >Holland's name within the body of the text (i)internally to each other >which did not include David in the circulation and (ii) externally to >other people (I am thinking here of the emails to collaborators >worldwide as well as any contact wiht the Met Office) as well as any >replies which mention Mr Holland. I will also need copies of any >exchanges directly between any of you and Mr Holland. > >We have 40 days from 28th August to answer this request. I intend to >call a meeting once I have reviewed all the material wiht David so that >we can quickly review the information which Mr Holland is entitled to >under the Act. > >Please get in touch if you want to discuss any of this. David is on >leave from later on this week until 22nd September and I will catch up >on him about progress after that date. > >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 > > > > 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 2557. 2008-10-02 15:58:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn date: Thu Oct 2 15:58:11 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: recognize this?! to: Edward Cook Dear Ed Thanks for these comments - and while I agree with them , I do not necessarily concur on the "fashionable" opinion these days that IPCC has made a mistake in stressing the temperature issue and the rank magnitudes of late Holocene warm periods. It is undeniable that hydroclimatic variability , past and future, is of enormous scientific and societal importance. However, the IPCC must follow the published literature and to a large extent the assessment must maintain a reasonable degree of continuity. Just as it is vital to understand spatial variability and mechanisms concerning temperature (and precipitation) changes, the extent of published knowledge has not, as yet, supported a strong emphasis on these topics. The focus on the MWP was perhaps to some degree a response to the misinformation peddled by certain climate warming sceptics, but I believe it was justified to devote the amount of limited space allotted to this section to the area of large-scale temperature reconstructions, especially considering the extent of the recent literature and the attacks on the TAR hockey stick. I hope we did a reasonable job in assessing the evidence honestly. I am in no doubt that future IPCC reports will reflect a growing body of evidence for the existence of large natural variability in moisture conditions and , hopefully, the dynamic mechanisms whereby temperature and moisture have varied over space in recent millennia. In our defence I would also say that the AR4 clearly pointed to the importance of the issue of natural drought occurence and cited the best relevant work demonstrating this - ie your own. My beef with Esper is not because his conclusion is wrong - merely that his piece wrongly impugns the IPCC. Through a subtle combination of selective focus, blatant misrepresentation of the text, and a complete failure to acknowledge the circumspect language and explicit caveats therein, he builds a straw man and succeeds in publishing a trivial, unoriginal idea. cheers Keith At 14:48 01/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith and Tim, I have quickly read through the Esper paper and have the following comments to make. First, I hadn't seen it before, so it is all new to me. It is certainly true that Jan did not do a proper job citing Briffa et al. (1992). That was a clear mistake, especially given that Douglass (1929) was cited for crossdating. I also note that Jan did not cite Osborn et al. (1997) on adjusting the variance in series for sample size changes. That too was an clear oversight given that Frank et al. (2007) was cited. Hopefully, neither was done intentionally. I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt on that unless it is a chronic problem in their publications. The latter issue of variance adjustment is also relevant to the discussion concerning spatial homogeneity or lack thereof. Am I correct in assuming that some form of variance adjustment was made to the series used in the AR4 report? I haven't read the report closely enough to recall if that was done. If it was done, that would tend to force the data towards an appearance of greater homogeneity, I would guess, hence the relative stability of the bootstrap intervals, etc.. In any case, I do tend to agree with Jan that nothing very definitive can be said about the spatial homogeneity of the putative MWP until we get more records to look at that truly express temperature and not something else. The whole issue of whether or not the MWP was more spatially heterogeneous or not is a huge "red herring" in my opinion anyway. A growing body of evidence clearly shows that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times. The problem is that we have been too fixated on temperature, especially hemispheric and global average temperature, and IPCC is enormously guilty of that. So the fact that evidence for "warming" in tree-ring records during the putative MWP is not as strong and spatially homogeneous as one would like might simply be due to the fact that it was bloody dry too in certain regions, with more spatial variability imposed on growth due to regional drought variability even if it were truly as warm as today. The Calvin cycle and evapotranspiration demand surely prevail here: warm-dry means less tree growth and a reduced expression of what the true warmth was during the MWP. That is my take on the Esper and Frank paper, with obvious editorial comments included as well. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: [1]drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Sep 29, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:50:59 +0100 To: Keith Briffa <[2]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> From: Tim Osborn <[3]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk> Subject: recognize this?! Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: [4]t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: [5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: [6]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 [7]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 [8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 5089. 2008-10-02 16:44:13 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 2 16:44:13 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: recognize this?! to: Edward Cook Ed I truly hope for this also - and that you may eventually end up as a lead author or convening lead author on the hoped-for palaeo chapter. I would certainly promote this to the best of my ability. Keith At 16:20 02/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, I think we are all in basic agreement here. My beef with IPCC is perhaps a bit unfair. It is probably more so an issue with the way the debate over past and present warming has been conducted, as you also suggest. The science is indeed moving past the point where the only issue to discuss and debate was one related to temperature change, and IPCC is responding to it as you say. Hopefully, IPCC will still include an explicit paleo chapter in the next report to enable a more complete synthesis to be made concerning past and present hydroclimatic variability. There will be a tremendous amount of exciting new results coming out over the next couple of years in that regard. I certainly hope you and Tim can work with me on some of this stuff. It will be fun to do. 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 ================================== On Oct 2, 2008, at 10:58 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: Dear Ed Thanks for these comments - and while I agree with them , I do not necessarily concur on the "fashionable" opinion these days that IPCC has made a mistake in stressing the temperature issue and the rank magnitudes of late Holocene warm periods. It is undeniable that hydroclimatic variability , past and future, is of enormous scientific and societal importance. However, the IPCC must follow the published literature and to a large extent the assessment must maintain a reasonable degree of continuity. Just as it is vital to understand spatial variability and mechanisms concerning temperature (and precipitation) changes, the extent of published knowledge has not, as yet, supported a strong emphasis on these topics. The focus on the MWP was perhaps to some degree a response to the misinformation peddled by certain climate warming sceptics, but I believe it was justified to devote the amount of limited space allotted to this section to the area of large-scale temperature reconstructions, especially considering the extent of the recent literature and the attacks on the TAR hockey stick. I hope we did a reasonable job in assessing the evidence honestly. I am in no doubt that future IPCC reports will reflect a growing body of evidence for the existence of large natural variability in moisture conditions and , hopefully, the dynamic mechanisms whereby temperature and moisture have varied over space in recent millennia. In our defence I would also say that the AR4 clearly pointed to the importance of the issue of natural drought occurence and cited the best relevant work demonstrating this - ie your own. My beef with Esper is not because his conclusion is wrong - merely that his piece wrongly impugns the IPCC. Through a subtle combination of selective focus, blatant misrepresentation of the text, and a complete failure to acknowledge the circumspect language and explicit caveats therein, he builds a straw man and succeeds in publishing a trivial, unoriginal idea. cheers Keith At 14:48 01/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith and Tim, I have quickly read through the Esper paper and have the following comments to make. First, I hadn't seen it before, so it is all new to me. It is certainly true that Jan did not do a proper job citing Briffa et al. (1992). That was a clear mistake, especially given that Douglass (1929) was cited for crossdating. I also note that Jan did not cite Osborn et al. (1997) on adjusting the variance in series for sample size changes. That too was an clear oversight given that Frank et al. (2007) was cited. Hopefully, neither was done intentionally. I tend to give people the benefit of a doubt on that unless it is a chronic problem in their publications. The latter issue of variance adjustment is also relevant to the discussion concerning spatial homogeneity or lack thereof. Am I correct in assuming that some form of variance adjustment was made to the series used in the AR4 report? I haven't read the report closely enough to recall if that was done. If it was done, that would tend to force the data towards an appearance of greater homogeneity, I would guess, hence the relative stability of the bootstrap intervals, etc.. In any case, I do tend to agree with Jan that nothing very definitive can be said about the spatial homogeneity of the putative MWP until we get more records to look at that truly express temperature and not something else. The whole issue of whether or not the MWP was more spatially heterogeneous or not is a huge "red herring" in my opinion anyway. A growing body of evidence clearly shows that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the "Medieval Climate Anomaly" or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times. The problem is that we have been too fixated on temperature, especially hemispheric and global average temperature, and IPCC is enormously guilty of that. So the fact that evidence for "warming" in tree-ring records during the putative MWP is not as strong and spatially homogeneous as one would like might simply be due to the fact that it was bloody dry too in certain regions, with more spatial variability imposed on growth due to regional drought variability even if it were truly as warm as today. The Calvin cycle and evapotranspiration demand surely prevail here: warm-dry means less tree growth and a reduced expression of what the true warmth was during the MWP. That is my take on the Esper and Frank paper, with obvious editorial comments included as well. Cheers, Ed ================================== Dr. Edward R. Cook Doherty Senior Scholar and Director, Tree-Ring Laboratory Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Palisades, New York 10964 USA Email: <[1]mailto:drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu Phone: 845-365-8618 Fax: 845-365-8152 ================================== On Sep 29, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Keith Briffa wrote: X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:50:59 +0100 To: Keith Briffa <<[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> From: Tim Osborn <<[3]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>t.osborn@uea.ac.uk> Subject: recognize this?! Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: <[4]mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk>t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: <[5]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/>[6]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: <[7]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm>[8]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclo ck.htm -- 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/>[10]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 [11]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 [12]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 12. 2008-10-02 19:07:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:07:03 -0600 from: Eugene Wahl subject: Re: Remake of IPCC Figure to: Tim Osborn Hi Tim: 1) Dave and I have talked at some length, including consideration of the caveats you rightly raise, and we would like to go ahead with a modified IPCC WG1 Fig 6:10c for the Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis Product document. What we have decided on is to have 5 (or maybe 7) time series in the graphic: the temperature of most overlap, and the corresponding high/low 10%, 5%, and 2.5% overlap temperatures. If you could provide us with just these time series, we would do the graphing of them here, as there may be a combining of this adapted 6:10c graphic with the CO2 record (higher-level committee has yet to decide). Let me know if that can work -- we hope it would be fairly straightforward. Please send the time series to Dave Anderson David.M.Anderson@noaa.gov and "cc" me, for reasons outlined in (3) below. 2) On the topic of a visit. I asked Dave about me coming there supported by NOAA, and he was very much positive about it, as am I. That being said, the politics here have set up the situation where our part of the US Federal Government is operating since October 1 on what is called a "continuing resolution". This means that our budget into this fiscal year (started Oct 1) is set at the same level as last FY. This will likely not get resolved until at least after our elections here in early November, and quite likely not until after the new congress and administration formally take office in January! Because of this, all foreign travel is on-hold for now within our part of NOAA. So, we will have to wait, at least for the moment. 3) On a strictly personal note, [[[redacted: health, 3rd party]]] I'll try to keep in touch with email at a lesser level than usual, but how much I will be able to do is not clear. That is why I suggest sending the time series directly to Dave. I hope this finds you all well. Peace, Gene Eugene.R.Wahl wrote: > Hi Tim: > > You are very gracious. I'll respond at greater length after Dave A. > and I talk about all this, with which I agree, and yet I think the > same problem is there with "traditional" (ouch) spaghetti-graphs. > > I'll also respond to the kind invitation. Short response -- I'd love > to come, both my wife (Barbara) and I love the UK, and have visited > several times. > > More later. > > Peace, Gene > > > > Tim Osborn wrote: >> Hi Gene, >> >> to replot the figure as you suggest is feasible for me. >> >> Are you sure about this though? It has always struck me (and Keith, >> with whom I devised this way of visualising the published results) as >> a rather ad-hoc approach and subject to various lines of attack (e.g. >> should we really combine reconstructions that represent rather >> different things [annual vs. summer, full NH vs. land], what does it >> mean if the published uncertainty ranges overlap from multiple >> studies if some of those studies have overlapping input proxy series >> and others have few overlaps?). >> >> I don't want to put you off, and our IPCC chapter co-authors didn't >> seem put off despite our (Keith and mine) prior expectations that >> they would. I just wanted to make sure that you're clear about the >> possible criticisms. >> >> Finally (I'm sure you know this anyway!), note that post-AR4 studies >> are not, of course(!), represented here. e.g. Mann et al. 2008, >> Juckes et al. 2007, others? Is that a problem? >> >> Thanks for your best wishes. Things are ok here in Norwich, >> September has been mild and I even got up to the beach (north >> Norfolk) a couple of times! New students are now here and so I'll be >> spending much time teaching during the next 2 months. I have a new >> PhD student who will probably be studying blocking circulation >> patterns and whether they are altered by climate change. >> >> If you ever want to pay us a visit (especially if you're coming to >> the UK for other meetings) here in Norwich, then you'd be very welcome. >> >> Tim >> >> At 06:26 30/09/2008, you wrote: >>> Hi Tim: >>> >>> Woops...here is a correction. I meant the 10% overlap lines on both >>> the high and low sides (rather than the 10% and 90% overlap lines). >>> This can be 5% overlap on the high and low sides if that makes >>> better sense. >>> Also, re: the mid line...it occurs to me that there could be >>> temperature "ties" for the highest percentage of overlap for any >>> given year, so in such a case, I'm imagining that the mid line would >>> be in the middle of such a range of overlap. Would that be a >>> sufficient tiebreaking rule to deal with all cases? >>> >>> Thanks, Gene >>> >>> >>> Eugene Wahl wrote: >>>> Hi Tim: >>>> >>>> I'm working with David Anderson, my supervisor here at NOAA-Paleo, >>>> and others higher up in NOAA on paleoclimate information to go into >>>> the US Government's official overview document on climate change >>>> research. >>>> It is called the "Climate Change Science Plan Unified Synthesis >>>> Product", and is like a kind-of US version of the IPCC SPM--Working >>>> Group 1. The goal is to have this ready for the new government >>>> administration as early next year as possible. >>>> >>>> We are trying to decide concerning a figure to summarize the >>>> high-resolution NH paleo-climate record for the past 1000 years -- >>>> the last version of the document had MBH 99 superposed with the CO2 >>>> recored for the same time period. One thought that came down to >>>> Dave and myself from others was to use the new Mann et al, 2008, >>>> Figure 3 over the past millennium or some part of it. Dave and I >>>> think the IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 6:10c is a better representation of >>>> the last millennium from a reconstruction standpoint, especially >>>> representing the uncertainties involved. CO2 would just be left >>>> out. [We also considered IPCC WG1 Ch. 6 Figure 14d as even better, >>>> as it shows the EMICs mostly follow the middle range of the >>>> reconstructions' overlap, except that those that don't have >>>> anthropogenic forcing deviate more and more cooler after the >>>> mid-20th century. This coupling of the forcings-driven EMICs with >>>> the reconstruction record we find much more powerful than a >>>> superposition of one or more reconstructions and the CO2 curve. >>>> However, this suggestion will not go for the synthesis product, as >>>> it is considered too abstract for that situation.] >>>> Indeed, even Figure 6:10c as it is may be too complex for the >>>> target audience we want to reach with the synthesis product. >>>> >>>> In light of the foregoing, the question Dave and I would like to >>>> ask you is this: would it be feasible to ask you to recreate >>>> Figure 6:10c with just three lines? These three lines would be a >>>> heavy mid line of the temperature anomalies where the highest >>>> percentage of overlap occurs for each year, and the 10% and 90% >>>> overlap lines (all overlap percentages defined exactly as in the >>>> original IPCC graphics). It is our understanding that you created >>>> Figure 6:10c, which is where this request comes from. >>>> Alternatively, could you provide us with these three time series, >>>> or direct us how to extract them from the the IPCC c. 6 archives we >>>> keep here? We understand that you are quite busy and we want to >>>> minimize any impact on you in this request. >>>> >>>> Please let us know what you think. >>>> >>>> Here is hoping you are well, and that the weather there not yet to >>>> coolish. I get a weekly commentary on nature and spirituality >>>> written from near UEA ("Word from Wormingford" it is called), and >>>> often think of you-all there as I read it. Please also say hello >>>> to Phil and Keith when you see them. >> >> 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 >> >> > 4478. 2008-10-03 12:03:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:03:21 +0100 from: Tim Osborn subject: RE: Meeting to discuss Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" Don't worry Dave, no need to apologise! I had got confused over exactly what caveat to add regarding the post-1960 data and posted a caveat that corresponded to a slightly different data set. So, my fault for telling you that it was ready for dissemination. I've now modified the webpage to put in the caveat that actually corresponds to the data that we sent Mann. The data themselves are unchanged -- at least I had posted the correct data! Probably best to let McIntyre know that we have modified the webpage (specifically, the note regarding the data values after 1960). Would you mind doing that? Other than giving notice of this modification, I think we're now done with this request. Thanks for your help again Tim At 11:45 03/10/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Keith, >Too late! I was unusually proactive last evening and sent a response >based on the information received from Tim. Michael has a copy of my >response. If we have issues/problems, could we identify them asap and >correct (if possible) in anticipation of a response from Mr. Holland? > >Apologies for my 'over-eagerness'! > >Cheers, Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Keith Briffa [mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 10:12 AM > >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV); Mcgarvie > >Michael Mr (ACAD); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) > >Cc: Goffin Sandie Mrs (SCI) > >Subject: RE: Meeting to discuss Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] > > > >Dave > >please wait a while until we respond here. We need to check a > >few things > >Keith > > > > > > > >At 17:00 02/10/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: > >>Gents, > >>The question is the extent to which the material on the web meets Mr. > >>McIntyre's request; I am assuming that what is on the web is > >in fact the > >>""Schweingruber" series" "...in the form provided to Dr Mann, together > >>with any relevant meta-data, manuals or literature describing the grid > >>locations of the series and the method of their calculation." > >> > >>If so, I will use the s.21 exemption, information reasonably available > >>by other means, and direct Mr. McIntyre to the appropriate web page. > >> > >>As to Tim's larger point regarding the provision of data 'in > >response to > >>requests', a request for data is a request for information like any > >>other under FOIA or EIR and has to be treated similarly on its merits. > >>If there is a valid exemption and public interest not to > >disclose, then > >>that is what we do; otherwise a requester is entitled to see the data > >>(and yes, I am aware of the implications for the research > >community writ > >>large of this - quite frankly, I am surprised that not more > >requests of > >>this nature have been made). > >> > >>Cheers, Dave > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:39 PM > >> >To: Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones > >> >Philip Prof (ENV); Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) > >> >Cc: Goffin Sandie Mrs (SCI) > >> >Subject: Re: Meeting to discuss Schweingruber Series [FOI_08-50] > >> > > >> >Dear Michael, > >> > > >> >our emails crossed! We have placed the data and the available > >> >information on our website (we already had a page devoted to the > >> >Schweingruber data). Provided you and Dave think that this > >meets our > >> >obligations then we probably don't need to meet to discuss things > >> >further (till the next request comes in!). > >> > > >> >Tim > >> > > >> >At 16:28 02/10/2008, Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\) wrote: > >> >>Dear All, > >> >> > >> >>The deadline for responding to this request is next Wednesday > >> >and having > >> >>just met Dave P about the Data Protection Act request (now > >all done) > >> >>there is lack of clarity about what we have or don't have in > >> >relation to > >> >>this more recent FOIA request. I do think that maybe we need > >> >to see if > >> >>we can get some of us round the table to discuss the matter. > >> >> > >> >>The available slots for Dave and I seem to be: > >> >>Monday 15.30 to 17.00 > >> >>Tuesday 10.00 to 11.00 > >> >>Tuesday 15.30 - 17.00 > >> >> > >> >>Can you let me know if you can do any of these so that we > >can quickly > >> >>discuss and bottom out how to respond? > >> >> > >> >>Thanks > >> >> > >> >>Michael > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>Michael McGarvie > >> >>Director of Faculty Administration > >> >>Faculty of Science > >> >>Room 0.22B > >> >>University of East Anglia > >> >>Norwich NR4 7TJ > >> >> > >> >>tel: 01603 593229 > >> >>fax: 01603 593045 > >> >> > >> >>m.mcgarvie@uea.ac.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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >-- > >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/ > > > > 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 1722. 2008-10-03 17:15:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:15:50 +0200 from: Håkan Grudd subject: Arctik2k to: Keith Briffa Arctic2k ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Scientific goals General goals of the Working Group are to generate and synthesize high-resolution paleoclimate data to assess and elucidate both the timing and variability of the Arctic climate change during this period. Furthermore, the group will contribute to the series of regional reconstructions of the last 2000 years in the new PAGES Focus 2 "Regional Climate Dynamics". Specific scientific questions targeted by the WG include: - Is the 20th century warming of the Arctic unprecedented in the last 2000 yr? Were temperatures in Medieval time warmer than those of the last several decades, and if so, what was the spatial pattern of temperature anomalies? - What is the multi-decadal to century scale variability in Arctic climate? - What are the spatial-temporal modes of climatic variability, including the Arctic Oscillation, on time scales ranging from inter-annual to centennial? How persistent are they beyond the instrumental record? What is the rate of change? - How do the extreme mean climate states of the historical record (i.e. LIA & MWP) relate to these long-term modes of Arctic climate variability? - What are the frequencies of extreme events in the Arctic? - What are the critical thresholds in the arctic system? - Was natural climate variability in the Arctic in the past also generally amplified in comparison with mid-latitudes? - What portion of the Arctic-wide and regional temperature changes during the last 2 kyr can be explained by changes in solar irradiance and volcanic activity, and what portion is related to internal adjustments of the climate system? -- ________________________ Håkan Grudd, PhD Department of Physical Geography & Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm URL: [1]http://ink.su.se Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 E-mail: [2]hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se Personal webpage: [3]http://people.su.se/~hgrud 4217. 2008-10-04 16:21:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat Oct 4 16:21:59 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: Fwd: GCB 08-576 Review information to: Keith Briffa Keith, I have gone through this paper (Tardif) and it is very good. They produce empirical evidence to show that the occurence of thin latewood vessel walls are not related to absolute temperature but to relative changes (if mean tempertaure is more than 2 degrees below recent mean) presumed due to aclimation of trees. By implication this suggests that MXD cannot retain long-timescale variance which makes the paper important, i.e. you should review it. As it comes from Prentice and we may want a favour from him later it ought to be done sooner than later. Tom At 15:08 02/10/2008, you wrote: X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.3.4 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:46:30 -0500 To: Keith Briffa From: GCB Subject: GCB 08-576 Review information X-UIUC-Life-Sciences-MailScanner-Information: Please contact help@life.uiuc.edu for more information X-UIUC-Life-Sciences-MailScanner-ID: 3FFBC4E8194.4106B X-UIUC-Life-Sciences-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UIUC-Life-Sciences-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (too large) X-UIUC-Life-Sciences-MailScanner-From: gcb@life.uiuc.edu X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 1694937, limit: 153600) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f023 (inherits from UEA:10_Tag_Only,UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 Dear Dr. Briffa, Thank you for agreeing to review this MS for Global Change Biology. We are attaching an Acrobat pdf file of the whole MS. Our priority is to obtain your recommendation as quickly as possible, so use the means of transmission easiest for yourself: e-mail, FAX or mail. We normally expect our reviewers to send us their comments within two weeks of receipt of the manuscript. To receive the free color print we will need your review by October 22nd. We would prefer that you send us your review using our electronic referee report form, which is also attached. This document has been created using the Word Forms facility, and the user only has access to the available fields. The third page of the form is available for free text into which you may type your review or, advisedly, paste in previously prepared comments. You may include any confidential comments on the first page of the form with the heading "this page will not be sent to the authors," but please do not include them after the heading "this form will be sent to the authors," as this and the following pages will be sent to the MS corresponding author. You may return the completed form to us as a file attached to an email message. We will check the properties of the saved document so as to remove possible information on your identity. Alternatively, you may send your review via the web-based report form that can be accessed at: <[1]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/static/gcb_rrf.asp>http://www.blackwellpublishing .com/static/gcb_rrf.asp If you have any questions, please just ask. Best regards, Rachel Shekar Manuscript Number: GCB 08/576 Manuscript Title: Climatic light rings in Pinus banksiana from the mixed boreal forest of central Canada: diagnostic, variability in past centuries, and implications for dendroclimatic reconstructions of past temperature changes Manuscript Authors: Tardif JC, Epp B, Girardin MP, Conciatori F Manuscript Editor: Colin Prentice Rachel Shekar Assistant Editor Global Change Biology 1135 Institute for Genomic Biology University of Illinois 1206 W. Gregory Dr. Urbana, IL 61801-3838, USA phone 217-333-9651 FAX +1-217-244-3637 e-mail: gcb@life.uiuc.edu [2]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- NEW! 2007 Impact factor 4.786 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- -- 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/ 5257. 2008-10-06 15:04:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 6 15:04:07 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: IJC and Santer et al. to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Tim, I've not bothered to forward these to Annie, but the Santer et al paper is due out this week in IJC (online). Ben will be doing a press release and a background document (both attached) when it appears. It hasn't yet, but Glenn is going to tell him. Glenn has also assured Ben that the paper will appear in the Nov issue - the same as Douglass et al, so expect lots of flak when it does. From Saffron's list, it seems no-one did the surface/tropospheric question, so no need to tell any of the students. If it does make the media - unlikely in this uncertain economic climate - it might be worth letting them know, to show we do have our fingers on the pulse! 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1328. 2008-10-07 11:05:35 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 7 11:05:35 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to GCOS to: "Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA)" Jo, OK, should have some idea by the end of Wednesday. I'm off again on Oct 20 for 6 days, so would need to complete the work by Oct 20. Cheers Phil At 10:57 07/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, A final e-mail before you leave. When youve had a chance to look at whats required to finalise the report in more detail, could you send me a revised estimate of how many days effort you think it will take you to finish it, along with confirmation of your daily rate, so that we can draw up an agreement for payment? I also wanted to let you know that the UNFCCC have confirmed that theyre able to wait until the 24^th of October for the report to be submitted, so wed need to get something submitted by then (ideally having sent it to Paul Mason and possibly other members of the GECC obs subgroup to look over before then, though I appreciate that we may be pushed for time on this). Hope this is okay. Thanks, Jo From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 October 2008 09:39 To: Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) Subject: RE: Report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to GCOS Jo, The only person I knew at the Windermere centre - of the Freshwater Biological Association is Glen George. His email is [2]glen@abercuch.wanadoo.co.uk I found this from a web search. [3]http://www.ies.aber.ac.uk/staff/academic/glen-george This is clearly the right person, but he seems to be retired now. [4]http://www.fba.org.uk/index/about.html - this link is the place Paul is talking about. Glen used to work for CEH based at the FBA (or next to it). This page says Michael Dobson is the current director. The CEH (Windermere) web site is undergoing restoration. I think this maybe because CEH has closed this centre. Not got us much further forward. Cheers Phil At 09:13 07/10/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, That sounds fine to me. Ill send the report to Jon Turton and any contact that Guy Winter can give me in SEPA, asking them to fill in any gaps and return the new versions of the reports to us both with track changes on ideally before the end of the week so theyre there when you get back. Late yesterday, Paul Mason pointed out one other site well need information on, which is Lake Windermere for the lake network. Doug Wilson of the environment agency didnt provide any information about this, but I can try contacting him again to double-check. Do you know of anyone who might have this information? Enjoy the meeting I hope the key-note goes well (and that they werent expecting it to be in Spanish!) Jo From: Phil Jones [ [5]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 07 October 2008 09:03 To: Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) Subject: RE: Report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to GCOS Jo, Apologies for not getting back yesterday afternoon. Yes it would be useful sending to Jon Turton to ask if he can fill in any missing info. As for SEPA, I did some work for them about 5 years ago, but the person I dealt with has moved on. I'm involved with the UKCIP08 work (Kathryn Humphrey leads on this at DEFRA). On the steering committee of this is Guy Winter - who may know who you could contact. "Winter, Guy (SEERAD)" . SEERAD is the Scottish Executive Environment, Rural Affairs Dept, I think. Not sure how this links to SEPA. Devolution has led to having to know more contacts - I presume Wales and NI are OK. The same steering committee has these two contacts "Barry McAuley" "Britton, Nicola (WAG-EPC)" but for the moment lets's assume that with Jon and any contact Guy can help you with at SEPA will be enough. I'd just email Guy and ask for a name, after a little background. So this should be enough for the moment. On emailing, I think I meant contacting you to ask any specific questions and to let you know how I'm getting on. Hope you get to find out soon where you'll be moving to! I'll be leaving about 2pm today. Cheers Phil At 12:14 06/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, That sounds fine to me though from my own experience trying to chase people for inputs to the report, Im afraid it might take them some time to get back to you. With this in mind, would it help if I sent the report to people and asked for their inputs while you are away (just to keep things moving)? Jon Turton at the Met Office provided previous inputs, so I could ask him to fill in the gaps marked with **?** in the table entries that the Met Office is responsible for if that would help (though he may not have done this before because he didnt know). Similarly, I could ask SEPA for information on the terrestrial networks, though Im not sure who the contact would be do you have any ideas? Im around all week, so feel free to e-mail/call me did you mean for suggestions of who you should contact, or who we should contact? If its the former, Im afraid I may not have the expertise to be much help, but I will certainly do my best. Let me know if you think this will be a problem. And yes, most of us working on climate change in Defra will be part of DECC (Dept for Energy and Climate Change I think) from sometime soon. Weve been told very little about it so far, but I think well be moving buildings sometime in the future, and well obviously have a new boss! Look forward to hearing from you about how we should proceed. Best wishes, Jo From: Phil Jones [ [6]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 October 2008 11:26 To: Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) Subject: RE: Report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to GCOS Jo, Have the latest draft. From your email it looks as though I will have to make a few contacts when I get back. This will be fine, though I hope they will respond quickly when I can email. I'll read the German and Swedish reports on the plane tomorrow, and make a start on Wednesday. It looks like it will take longer than I first anticipated, but hopefully not that much longer. Will you be in later in the week? I might email with suggestions for who else to contact. Are you still in DEFRA by the way? I was just wondering what of DEFRA will be in the new Climate Change and Energy Dept? Cheers Phil At 10:09 06/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Many thanks for offering to do this both the timescale and cost would work very well for us, so it would be great if you were able to do it. In terms of the work involved, however, I should let you know that I ran the draft by Paul Mason over the weekend and he thinks it still requires some input from the Met Office (for the gaps in the atmospheric tables) and SEPA (for the terrestrial tables), so you might need to contact them for some information. I also thought that some other organisations might need to be contacted in order to answer some of the queries I flagged up in yellow and to produce the narrative sections and consolidate the table entries into single numbers with no text (as the other countries have done). Does this fit with what you had in mind? If you need a few extra days to do this, wed be happy to pay for those I just wanted to make sure you were aware of what was involved before taking it on! I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Jo P.S. Paul Mason made some small changes to the draft I sent you last week using track changes. I have attached his edited version to this e-mail so that you have the most up to date version of the report. From: Phil Jones [ [7]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 06 October 2008 09:32 To: Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) Subject: Re: Report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to GCOS Jo, I've printed off the documents and should be able to do this. I am away in Spain at a meeting from tomorrow afternoon until next Monday. I should be able to do it then. I have learnt that several sessions at this meeting will be in Spanish. I'm giving the first keynote talk in English! As for the time this will take, I need to read some of it to decide. My guess from a quick screen scan is that it is something in the range of 1-2 days. I'd charge £500 per day for this. Let me know if this is OK? I leave for Spain about noon tomorrow. I should be able to get something back to you next week - hopefully the first part as I have teaching on Tues/Weds am. Are you happy with a tracked changed version of your document? The original Tables could be left in as Appendices. I'm on the GCOS Atmospheric Observation Panel and we've looked at these national submissions in earlier rounds. Cheers Phil At 12:01 03/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Sorry to bother you with this, but I was hoping that you might be able to help us with a small piece of work that we need completing over the next 2-3 weeks, or that you might know someone who would (for a fee, of course). The background to the request is that the UK needs to submit a report to the UNFCCC on UK contributions to the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) as soon as possible (the deadline for submission has already passed, but we are seeking an extension). We had originally hoped that we would be able to compile the report ourselves, as a consultancy firm working for us agreed to help draft the report and circulate it to interested parties for contributions. They have now done this, but the draft they produced still needs some work. We therefore need someone with knowledge of the climate observations made in the UK to produce a final version of the report from the draft that we already have. I have attached our latest draft of the report, along with the UNFCCC guidelines for compiling the report and two examples of reports produced by other countries (Germany and Sweden) so you can see roughly what the final version should look like. You will notice that the main issue with our report is that the UNFCCC need narrative information on the UK contribution to GCOS (as mentioned in paras 12, 13/15, 16-18, 20-23/25 of the guidelines) and very brief summary tables, whereas our report has almost all the information in tables. So the main job would be to transfer the extra information in the tables into narrative form, as set out in the guidelines, as well as filling in any gaps and answering the questions flagged up in yellow in the report. Would you be willing to take this project on? If so, could you provide us with an estimate of the cost of the work and when you would be able to complete it by? If not, it would be a great help if you could suggest anyone with the appropriate expertise who might be able to do so. Please feel free to give me a ring if you need any more details (0207 238 3384). Many thanks for your help, Jo <<20081001_UK GCOS report for Defra.doc>> <> <> <> ______________________ Joanna Thorpe Climate Science and Stratospheric Ozone Team Climate, Energy and Ozone: Science and Analysis (CEOSA) Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Zone 3E, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL Tel: 0207 238 3384 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5319. 2008-10-09 08:10:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" , Tim Osborn date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:10:01 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Press release to: Anne Stark Dear Anne, Could you please send the final version of the press release to Phil Jones and Tim Osborn at the University of East Anglia? Phil and Tim will forward the release and the fact sheet to their contacts at the BBC. With best regards, Ben (P.S.: I'm appending the final version of the fact sheet) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\fact_sheet_IJoC_06oct08.doc" 3330. 2008-10-09 10:34:51 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 9 10:34:51 2008 from: Keith Briffa to: Astrid.Ogilvie@Colorado.EDU Dear Dr Ogilvie, I am writing on behalf of the Director , Professor Philip Jones to say that The Climatic Research Unit would be very happy to collaborate on the project you propose: Understanding Climate-Driven Phenological Change - Observations, Adaptations and Cultural Implications in Northeastern Siberia and Labrador/Nunatsiavut (PHENARC). This Unit, as you are well aware possesses large holdings of instrumental climate records at individual station locations and in wider gridded form , representing a range of spatial and temporal resolutions and covering all of the regions appropriate to your proposed research. We also have extensive experience in the interpretation and analysis of high (ie. annual) -resolution proxy climate data - with a relevant focus in this case, on the production of tree-ring and tree-ring-density records that provide strong indications of summer temperature variability in various regions of northern Eurasia , spanning time periods ranging up to several millennia. We have published various papers describing the nature of warming patterns , changing seasonality (particular in the characteristics of "growing season" changes), and the reconstruction and simulation of past and future warming characteristics in North America and Eurasia. I include a selection of relevant references below. I feel sure that our co-operation would result in profitable scientific advances in the analysis of the nature and consequences of climate changes in these northern areas. I wish you success with your application. sincerely Keith. R. Briffa Deputy Director, Climatic Research Unit Selected relevant references- for other references see [1]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ Briffa, K.R., Shishov, V.V., Melvin, T.M., Vaganov, E.A., Grudd, H., Hantemirov, R.M., Eronen, M. and Naurxbaev, M.M., 2007 Trends in recent temperature and radial tree growth spanning 2000 years across northwest Eurasia Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, [2]doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2119 Jones, P.D. and Briffa, K.R., 2006 Unusual climate in northwest Europe during the period 1730 to 1745 based on instrumental and documentary data. Jones, P.D. and Moberg, A., 2003 Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: an extensive revision and an update to 2001. Journal of Climate 16, 206-223 American Meteorological Society Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R., 2003 Changes in the Northern Hemisphere annual cycle: implications for paleoclimatology? Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 4588 ([3]doi.10.1029/2003JD003695) Briffa, K.R. and Matthews, J.A. (eds), 2002 Analysis of dendrochronological variability and associated natural climates in Eurasia (ADVANCE-10K). The Holocene (Special Issue) 12(6), 759pp Available in The Holocene (Special Issue) 12(6). Briffa, K.R., Osborn, T.J., Schweingruber, F.H., Jones, P.D., Shiyatov, S.G. and Vaganov, E.A., 2002 Tree-ring width and density around the Northern Hemisphere: Part 2, spatio-temporal variability and associated climate patterns. The Holocene 12, 759-789 Jones, P.D., Briffa, K.R., Barnett, T.P. and Tett, S.F.B., 1998 High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: interpretation, integration and comparison with General Circulation Model control-run temperatures. The Holocene 8(4), 455-471 Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Schweingruber, F.H., Shiyatov, S.G. and Vaganov, E.A., 1996 Development of a north Eurasian chronology network: Rationale and preliminary results of comparative ring-width and densitometric analyses in northern Russia. Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity (Eds. J.S. Dean, D.M. Meko and T.W. Swetnam), Radiocarbon 1996, pp.25-41 Jones, P.D. and Briffa, K.R., 1995 Growing season temperatures over the former Soviet Union. International Journal of Climatology 15, 943-959 -- Professor Keith Briffa, Deputy Director, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 694. 2008-10-09 13:35:58 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:35:58 -0300 from: "Manuel Nores" subject: MS 3883 to: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Dear members of the Editorial Board of Climatic Change: Ten months ago (December 4, 2007) I submitted to Climatic Change the manuscript Are bird populations in tropical and subtropical forest of South America affected by climate change? (MS 3883). After four months without news I asked Dr Katarina Kivel about the paper on several occasions and she answered me the following: April 30 This is to let you know that we are still trying to pry a sufficient number of reviews of your paper, and we will be back in touch as soon as possible. June 02 We are still trying to pry a sufficient number of reviews of your paper, so we need more time. Apologies for the delay. July 07 We hope to have comments in a few weeks. August 01 Apologies for the delay in the review of your manuscript on Bird Populations. Unfortunately, however, we are having problems transmitting the figures to the reviewers, and would very much appreciate your re-sending these in Word or PDF format or JPEG. August 19 After many attempts to get a sufficient number of reviews, we now have received two reviews, which I will call to Dr. Schneider's attention when he returns from travel next week, as he may have additional comments. Although favorable toward eventual publication, both reviewers have a number of general and specific comments that will need to be addressed in a revision. August 20 I'm afraid that I made an error in my response to your query. Actually, two reviews have been promised but not yet arrived. We will follow up on the reviewers right away and hope that we will indeed have good news. We regret the delay. After that I did not receive any responses. Does this usually occur during the reviewing process in this prestigious journal? Best regards Manuel Nores 58. 2008-10-09 17:56:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Tom Giverin - IN STRICT CONFIDENCE to: "Toumi, Ralf" Ralf [[[redacted: reference]]] Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions. with best wishes Keith At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote: Dear Keith, Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for me..., but I always worry at this time of year). Best wishes, Ralf Professor Ralf Toumi Department of Physics Imperial College London SW7 2AZ UK Rm. H713 (Huxley Building) Telephone: + 44 (0) 207 594 7668 Fax: + 44 (0) 207 594 7900 email: [1]r.toumi@imperial.ac.uk Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/ -- 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/ 1883. 2008-10-10 11:50:21 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:50:21 +0100 from: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" subject: RE: Press release to: "Tim Osborn" , "Ogden Annie Ms \(MAC\)" , , Thanks Tim. The BBC environment correspondents are: Roger Harrabin (Today programme/World at One) - roger.harrabin@bbc.co.uk Matt McGrath (BBC World Service) - matt.mcgrath@bbc.co.uk Sarah Mukherjee (BBC TV/Radio) - sarah.mukherjee@bbc.co.uk Christine McGourty (BBC TV/Radio) - christine.mcgourty@bbc.co.uk David Shukman (BBC TV) - david.shukman@bbc.co.uk Hope this helps. Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 www.uea.ac.uk/comm >-----Original Message----- >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 11:29 AM >To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC); Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Subject: RE: Press release > >Hi Simon. > >Thanks for the reply, I understand the reason. > >LLNL are doing a press release but don't have a BBC contact. Is it >possible then for you to send to our US colleagues the contact >details for the appropriate BBC person, so that they can issue the >press release to the BBC themselves? Their emails are: Anne Stark > and Ben Santer > >UEA may still get a mention, since we feature in the LLNL press >release. All the quotes the BBC need are in Ben's press release and >fact sheet. Even if Phil was here, he would have to make sure he >didn't say anything different! > >Thanks > >Tim > > > > >At 10:55 10/10/2008, Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\) wrote: >>Thanks Tim but I'm afraid there's no way we can send >something out if we >>cannot offer an interviewee. Would make us look ridiculous! >> >>Sorry. >> >>Simon >> >>Simon Dunford, Press Officer, >>University of East Anglia, >>Norwich, NR4 7TJ. >>Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 >>www.uea.ac.uk/comm >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] >> >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 10:21 AM >> >To: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC); Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) >> >Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >> >Subject: Fwd: Press release >> > >> >Dear Annie and/or Simon, >> > >> >today a new paper is being published online in International Journal >> >of Climatology which involves Phil Jones as a co-author. There may >> >be quite a bit of media interest in this, as it relates to a >> >contentious issue (about whether our climate models are capable of >> >reproducing recent climate changes). >> > >> >Sorry for the short notice, but most of the media side of things is >> >being organised via the lead author's institution in USA. However >> >they did hope that we might forward their press release and fact >> >sheet to our BBC contacts. Phil is away though, so we don't have >> >anyone here to do interviews. I know about the work, but >am teaching >> >most of today, so won't have time to get involved, beyond >sending you >> >this email which Phil asked me to send in his absence. >> > >> >Anyway, the press release and fact sheet are attached. Would it be >> >possible to send these to BBC news/website environment people (is it >> >still Richard Black and/or Roger Harrabin?)? >> > >> >Best wishes >> > >> >Tim >> > >> >P.S. I just checked the publishers website and the paper is now >> >published online (about 5 minutes ago), so no embargo etc. to >> >worry about. >> > >> >>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:02:24 -0700 >> >>To: p.jones@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >> >>From: Anne Stark >> >>Subject: Fwd: Press release >> >> >> >>Dear Phil and Tim: >> >> >> >>Attached is the press release we plan to send out tomorrow morning >> >>PDT. Please let me know if you need anything further. Ben already >> >>sent you the fact sheet. >> >> >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Anne >> >> >> >> >> >>>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:10:01 -0700 >> >>>From: Ben Santer >> >>>To: Anne Stark >> >>>Subject: Press release >> >>> >> >>>Dear Anne, >> >>> >> >>>Could you please send the final version of the press release to >> >>>Phil Jones and Tim Osborn at the University of East Anglia? Phil >> >>>and Tim will forward the release and the fact sheet to their >> >>>contacts at the BBC. >> >>> >> >>>With best regards, >> >>> >> >>>Ben >> >>> >> >>>(P.S.: I'm appending the final version of the fact sheet) >> >>>------------------------------------------------------------- >> >--------------- >> >>>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) 422-3840 >> >>>FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> >>>email: santer1@llnl.gov >> >>>------------------------------------------------------------- >> >--------------- >> >> >> >>Anne M. Stark >> >>Sr. Public Information Officer >> >>Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >> >>7000 East Avenue, L-3 >> >>Livermore, CA 94550 >> >>(925) 422-9799 >> >> >> > > >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 > > > 3950. 2008-10-11 01:55:08 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:55:08 -0400 (EDT) from: G.M.Oliver@swansea.ac.uk subject: Reviewer selections for Manuscript ID HOL-08-0064 now due to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk 11-Oct-2008 Dear Prof. Briffa: Manuscript ID HOL-08-0064 entitled "Proxy evidences of the changing monsoonal precipitation during the last millennium over central west coast of India : A possible link to solar variability" with Dr. Neloy Khare as contact author has been assigned to you and is currently sitting in your Associate Editor Center at http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/holocene . This e-mail is a reminder that Reviewer selections are now due. Sincerely, Gill Oliver The Holocene Editorial Office G.M.Oliver@swansea.ac.uk 2113. 2008-10-13 20:25:49 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:25:49 -0400 from: "luckman@uwo.ca" subject: Re: urgent request to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Thanks Keith, It's good to get some good news on this issue as most of the new chronologies we have from the yUkon all show strong negative relationships between RW and temperatures at Dawson. More anon- we have house guests just now. Cheers brian Original Message: ----------------- From: Keith Briffa k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 15:18:43 +0100 To: luckman@uwo.ca Subject: Re: urgent request Hi Brian paper attached - am only more than a year behind in trying to write up paper showing Rosanne's interpretation of divergence at TTHH is largely a standardisation artifact - and likely also our own early results . The attached along with some of the blurb in the IPCC section on this should help though. cheers Keith At 14:45 13/10/2008, you wrote: >Keith, > >Greetings! >Could you please send me a PDF of the recent Royal Society paper ( July >2008). >I have to speak to inter alia the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologits >next week on tree-rings and temperatures and it would be good to have some >backup information that "divergence" so called is not universal. > >Cheers > >Brian > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >mail2web - Check your email from the web at >http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web -- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail 2861. 2008-10-14 10:00:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Knutti Reto" , "Stott, Peter" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Daithi Stone" , "Richard Smith" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Doug Nychka" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Bamzai, Anjuli" , "Chris Miller" , "Tom Knutson" , "Tim Delsole" , "Susan Solomon" , "Jones, Gareth S" , "Tara Torres" date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:00:11 +0100 from: "Myles Allen" subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23 to: "claudia tebaldi" , "Gabi Hegerl" Hi All, That is a very good idea indeed. I was talking to Tom Stocker last week, arguing that resolving the differences in the definition of attribution between WG1 and WG2 was going to be one of the key challenges for AR5, particularly as attribution of impacts becomes a live topic as countries start to make the case for adaptation assistance. How about we invite the co-Chair of WG1 along as well? If we are going to invite Chris Field, we should definitely also invite someone from the "double attribution" community, or it will seem a bit like WG1 lecturing to the co-Chair of WG2. Any suggestions, David? Anjuli, has anyone in the US State Department (or whichever department will handle this) started addressing the question of how the US government will distinguish "impacts of climate change" from "vulnerability to natural climate variability" in allocating resources for adaptation assistance? If anyone has even started thinking about this problem, it would be very interesting to hear from them to know what questions they are likely to need answering. We could also try and find out if anyone in the European Commission is worrying about this. Regards, Myles -----Original Message----- From: claudia tebaldi [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] Sent: 13 October 2008 20:46 To: Gabi Hegerl Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; stoned@csag.uct.ac.za; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S; Tara Torres Subject: Re: Meeting Jan 21-23 Hi Gabi et al. I wonder if we could try to get Chris Field, who is going to be the chair of working group 2 for AR5...I don't know how likely it is to get him but it may be interesting to get his perspective on what was done in AR4 WG2 and what he would like to see in AR5 WG2. c On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi IDAG people, > > Its time to start planning our next IDAG meeting in detail. A provisional > coarse agenda is attached. Please feel free to email me > suggestions to improve/update this, and if there is a topic you would love > to see covered but that isn;t please get in touch as well. > Also, we should have one topic related to the impacts review paper that is > to be written in year 2 of the grant. Therefore, if you > have a suggestion of a guest that would help us elucidate the challenges in > impact attribution but also to move forward on this, > please let me know! > Tara Torres from UCAR (tara@ucar.edu) will help us to plan the meeting. > Also, I hope to hire a student helper at Duke to get our meeting webpage > going, keep track of agenda items etc, but please bear with me > and tolerate a bit of chaos before we have succeeded with this! > > What I need from you is to please > - let me know if you can make it, and what you would vaguely like to speak > about (you can do the first now and postpone the second) > - get in touch with Tara to book your travel - ideally, towards the end of > October / or in early November (she is a bit buried right now) > - get in touch with me when you have suggestions, or want to bring somebody > > 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 > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80305 tel. 303.497.2487 5029. 2008-10-14 15:21:37 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Knutti Reto" , "Stott, Peter" , "Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]" , "Tim Barnett" , "Hans von Storch" , "Claudia Tebaldi" , "Phil Jones" , "David Karoly" , "Toru Nozawa" , "Ben Santer" , "Daithi Stone" , "Richard Smith" , "Nathan Gillett" , "Michael Wehner" , "Doug Nychka" , "Xuebin Zhang" , "Chris Miller" , "Tom Knutson" , "Tim Delsole" , "Susan Solomon" , "Jones, Gareth S" , "Tara Torres" date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:21:37 -0400 from: "Bamzai, Anjuli" subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23 to: "Myles Allen" , "claudia tebaldi" , "Gabi Hegerl" Myles, The Dept of State is the U.S. lead on IPCC, Conference of Party discussions, etc. USAID does the bulk of adaptation assistance at the international level. At the national level, there are various CCSP agencies, e.g. Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Interior, EPA, who are more on the 'application' side of the CCSP. I'd need to ask someone in those agencies on how they are approaching the issues you raise. Perhaps Chris Miller knows someone there...? Programs such as NOAA Climate Change Data Detection (CCDD), and DOE Climate Change Prediction Program(CCPP) focus almost exclusively on IPCC WG I type of questions. Anjuli -----Original Message----- From: Myles Allen [mailto:allen@atm.ox.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 5:00 AM To: claudia tebaldi; Gabi Hegerl Cc: Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; Daithi Stone; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S; Tara Torres Subject: RE: Meeting Jan 21-23 Hi All, That is a very good idea indeed. I was talking to Tom Stocker last week, arguing that resolving the differences in the definition of attribution between WG1 and WG2 was going to be one of the key challenges for AR5, particularly as attribution of impacts becomes a live topic as countries start to make the case for adaptation assistance. How about we invite the co-Chair of WG1 along as well? If we are going to invite Chris Field, we should definitely also invite someone from the "double attribution" community, or it will seem a bit like WG1 lecturing to the co-Chair of WG2. Any suggestions, David? Anjuli, has anyone in the US State Department (or whichever department will handle this) started addressing the question of how the US government will distinguish "impacts of climate change" from "vulnerability to natural climate variability" in allocating resources for adaptation assistance? If anyone has even started thinking about this problem, it would be very interesting to hear from them to know what questions they are likely to need answering. We could also try and find out if anyone in the European Commission is worrying about this. Regards, Myles -----Original Message----- From: claudia tebaldi [mailto:claudia.tebaldi@gmail.com] Sent: 13 October 2008 20:46 To: Gabi Hegerl Cc: Myles Allen; Knutti Reto; Stott, Peter; Zwiers,Francis [Ontario]; Tim Barnett; Hans von Storch; Claudia Tebaldi; Phil Jones; David Karoly; Toru Nozawa; Ben Santer; stoned@csag.uct.ac.za; Richard Smith; Nathan Gillett; Michael Wehner; Doug Nychka; Xuebin Zhang; Bamzai, Anjuli; Chris Miller; Tom Knutson; Tim Delsole; Susan Solomon; Jones, Gareth S; Tara Torres Subject: Re: Meeting Jan 21-23 Hi Gabi et al. I wonder if we could try to get Chris Field, who is going to be the chair of working group 2 for AR5...I don't know how likely it is to get him but it may be interesting to get his perspective on what was done in AR4 WG2 and what he would like to see in AR5 WG2. c On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Gabi Hegerl wrote: > Hi IDAG people, > > Its time to start planning our next IDAG meeting in detail. A provisional > coarse agenda is attached. Please feel free to email me suggestions > to improve/update this, and if there is a topic you would love > to see covered but that isn;t please get in touch as well. > Also, we should have one topic related to the impacts review paper that is > to be written in year 2 of the grant. Therefore, if you have a > suggestion of a guest that would help us elucidate the challenges in > impact attribution but also to move forward on this, please let me > know! > Tara Torres from UCAR (tara@ucar.edu) will help us to plan the meeting. > Also, I hope to hire a student helper at Duke to get our meeting webpage > going, keep track of agenda items etc, but please bear with me and > tolerate a bit of chaos before we have succeeded with this! > > What I need from you is to please > - let me know if you can make it, and what you would vaguely like to speak > about (you can do the first now and postpone the second) > - get in touch with Tara to book your travel - ideally, towards the end of > October / or in early November (she is a bit buried right now) > - get in touch with me when you have suggestions, or want to bring somebody > > 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 > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- Claudia Tebaldi Research Scientist, Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org currently visiting IMAGe/NCAR PO Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80305 tel. 303.497.2487 4659. 2008-10-15 05:49:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:49:11 -0700 from: Spiritual Leader of the Global Community subject: Planetary biodiversity zone under the protection of the GPA Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk id m9FCnIKc023399 Planetary biodiversity zone under the protection of the GPA [1]Links to previous Newsletters are shown here Volume 6 Issue 10 October 2008 [2]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GIMProceedings/GNewsOct2008.htm Politics and Justice without borders Global Community Global Movement to Help Theme this month : Planetary biodiversity zone ( Part III ) Investigative Report by Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community President Earth Government Global Law[3] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] The Global Community has established a planetary biodiversity zone now under the protection of the Global Protection Agency (GPA). We have declared a moratorium on all development in the zone, including all drilling, military testing, and any other destructive uses of the ecosystems. The planetary biodiversity zone includes : [4] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] * North Pole region [5] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] * South Pole region * all oceans * all forests * all lakes * all rivers and connecting streams * all wetlands and grasslands * living organisms and ecosystems in all of the above The people of all nations are required to respect the moratorium until global law has been completed to include regulations to be enforced by the GPA.[6] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] [7][cid:part3.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] ______________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents This is the way [8] Message from the Spiritual Leader of the Global Community Message from the Editor [9] GIM Message from the Editor Message from the President of Earth Government [10] Message from the President of Earth Government Cultural Appreciation Day August 22 of each year [11] Cultural Appreciation Day August 22 of each year Life Day Celebration on May 26 was a success [12] Life Day Celebration May 26 was a success Twenty three years ago, on October 29, 1985, the Global Community organization was created.[13] Twenty three years ago, on October 29, 1985, the Global Community organization was created. Participate now in Global Dialogue 2009, no fees [14] Participate now in Global Dialogue 2009 Global Dialogue 2009 Introduction [15] Global Dialogue 2009 Introduction Global Dialogue 2009 Program [16] Global Dialogue 2009 Program Global Dialogue 2009 OVERVIEW of the process [17] Global Dialogue 2009 OVERVIEW of the process Global Dialogue 2009 Call for Papers [18] Global Dialogue 2009 Call for Papers ______________________________________________________________________________________ Press releases Planetary biodiversity zone ( Part III ) [19] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] An investigative report This one is for you Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden [20] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] ___________________________________________________________________________________ We seek more symbiotical relationships with people and organizations[21] We seek more symbiotical relationships Note concerning personal info sent to us by email[22] Note concerning personal info sent to us by email We have now streamlined the participation process in the Global Dialogue[23] We have now streamlined the participation process in the Global Dialogue Press Release concerning the 22 nd Year Anniversary of the Global Community organization [24] Press Release concerning the 22 nd Year Anniversary of the Global Community organization ______________________________________________________________________________________ [25]GIM daily proclamations main website Authors of research papers and articles on global issues for this month Partha Banerjee, Meltdown On Wall Street: Grave Warning For India [26] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Praful Bidwai, Nuclear Waiver - Blow To Non-Proliferation [27] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Yu Bin, China Still On-Side With Russia [28] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Ramzy Baroud, Global Realignment: How Bush Inspired A New World Order [29] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Steve Connor, The Methane Time Bomb [30] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Guy CREQUIE (5) Sauvons la banquise et l'humanité [31] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] PRINCIPE DHARMONIE ET REALITE SOCIALE = LE CHEMIN DE LA TRANSFORMATION [32] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] CONCEPTS..ET ACTUALITE DU MONDE = QUELQUES REFLEXIONS [33] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Adolescence et violence = Non à l'universalisme de la finitude assassasine [34] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Droits de l'homme et devoir d'humanité[35] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Peter Chamberlin, Overcoming Human Nature: The Revolution Of The Meek [36] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Germain Dufour (2) This one is for you Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden [37] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Planetary biodiversity zone ( Part III ) [38] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Tom Engelhardt, Going On An Imperial Bender [39] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Barry Grey, Panic Sell-Off On Wall Street [40] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Dean Hepburn, The Blue Crystal Ball [41] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Robert Kuttner, Only a Roosevelt-Scale Counterrevolution Can Prevent Great Depression II [42] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Dot Maver, Peace Partnership International [43] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Jason Miller, Murdering Mother Earth [44] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Triaka Smith, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY [45] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] David Swanson, Why We're Planning To Prosecute Cheney And Bush [46] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Beth Weaver, South Africa: A 21st Century Struggle [47] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Cliff Wirth, Surviving Peak Oil: Obstacles To Relocation [48] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] David Yarnold, What Iceland Can Teach America [49] [cid:part4.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Conclusion to investigative report Planetary biodiversity zone ( Part III ) The rate of world population growth is beginning to decline, but the total number of people could still double or even triple from todays 6.7 billion before stabilizing a century or more from now. Women in most countries are still having more than the two-child average consistent with a stable population size. Moreover, so many young people are now entering or moving through their childbearing years that even a two-child average would still boost population size for a few decades until the momentum of past growth subsides. Yet there is reason for optimism. The combination of access to family planning and other reproductive health services, education for girls and economic opportunity for women could lower birthrates enough to stabilize world population well before a doubling of todays total. Motivation, rather than differential access to modern contraception is a major determinant of fertility. Individuals frequently respond to scarcity by having fewer children, and to perceived improved economic opportunity by having more children. Economic development does not cause family size to shrink; rather, at every point where serious economic opportunity beckons, family size preferences expand. In fact we observed that: a) Foreign aid conveys to the recipients the perception of improving economic wellbeing, which is followed by an increase in the fertility of the recipients of the aid. b) Migrations from regions of low economic opportunity to places of higher economic opportunity result in an increase in the fertility of the migrants that persists for a generation or two. The need is not to control population growth. Governments cannot control childbearing and attempts to do so have sometimes led to coercive approaches to reproduction that violate human rights. The need is rather to expand the power individuals have over their own lives, especially by enabling them to choose how many children to have and when to have them. The well-being of the world's forests is closely linked to the health and well-being of women. Investing in education for girls helps them to: a) contribute to their national economies, and b) postpone childbearing until they are ready for a family. Providing credit and other economic opportunities for women creates alternatives to early and frequent childbearing. Finally, better access to quality reproductive health services directly benefits women and their families. These approaches increase human capacity, providing the greatest long term return to societies, individuals and the environment. Moreover, they are likely to lead to an early peak in world population in the coming century, quite possibly at levels that can co-exist with forests that teem with human and non-human life for centuries to come.Comprehensive population policies are an essential element in a world development strategy that combines access to reproductive health services, to education and economic opportunities, to improved energy and natural resource technologies, and to healthyer models of consumption and the "good life." Policies to decrease world population: delay reproduction until later in life Delaying reproduction is important in influencing population growth rates. Over a period of 60 years, if people delay reproduction until they are 30 years old, you would have only two generations, while if you do not delay reproduction you would have three generations (one generation every 20 years). spread your children farther apart to have fewer children overall government commitment to decreasing population growth: create policies that help decreasing the number of children being born. Policies such as income tax deductions for dependent children and maternity and paternity leaves are essentially pronatalist and should be eliminated. programs that are locally designed and that include information on family planning and access to contraceptives educational programs that emphasize the connection between family planning and social good The vast disparities in reproductive health worldwide and the greater vulnerability of the poor to reproductive risk point to several steps all governments can take, with the support of other sectors, to improve the health of women and their families: * Give women more life choices. The low social and economic status of women and girls sets the stage for poor reproductive health * Invest in reproductive health care * Encourage delays in the onset of sexual activity and first births * Help couples prevent and manage unwanted childbearing * Ensure universal access to maternal health care * Support new reproductive health technologies * Increase efforts to address the HIV pandemic * Involve communities in evaluating and implementing programs * Develop partnerships with the private sector, policymakers and aid donors to broaden support for reproductive health * Measure Progress More and more young people on every continent want to start bearing children later in life and to have smaller families than at any time in history. Likewise, in greater proportions than ever, women and girls in particular want to go to school and to college, and they want to find fulfilling and well-paid employment. Helping people in every country obtain the information and services they need to put these ambitions into effect is all that can be done, and all that needs to be done, to bring world population growth to a stable landing in the new century. Our planet is populated with living beings consisting of millions of different life forms interacting with each other to survive, thus forming an intricate web of life in different ecosystems on the planet. The interaction and interdependence between life forms are the driving force that creates and maintains an ecological - environmental equilibrium that has sustained life on Earth for millions of years enabling it to evolve, flourish and diversify. The Global Community values Earths diversity in all its forms, the non-human as well as the human. Virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and Oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. It is a part of the global life-support systems and is a right that needs protecting at all costs. The right and responsibility that human beings have in protecting photosynthesis has the highest importance on the Scale of Global Rights. [50] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] On Earths surface exists a diversity of arctic, temperate and tropical ecosystems with many different varieties of plants, animals, and human beings, all of which are dependent on soils, waters and local climates. Biodiversity, the diversity of organisms, depends on maintenance of ecodiversity, the diversity of ecosystems. Cultural diversity which in effect is a form of biodiversity is the historical result of humans fitting their activities, thoughts and language to specific geographic ecosystems. Therefore, whatever degrades and destroys ecosystems is both a biological and a cultural source. Earth is mostly covered with oceans. Though generally recognized as several 'separate' oceans, these waters comprise one global, interconnected body of salt water forming the Global Ocean. This concept of a global ocean as a continuous body of water with relatively free interchange among its parts is of fundamental importance to the Global Community. The major oceanic divisions are defined in part by the continents, and various archipelagos. These divisions are the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Southern Ocean (which is sometimes subsumed as the southern portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans), and the Arctic Ocean (which is sometimes considered a sea of the Atlantic). The Pacific and Atlantic may be further subdivided by the equator into northerly and southerly portions. Smaller regions of the oceans are called seas, gulfs, bays and other names. There are also some smaller bodies of saltwater that are on land and not interconnected with the Global Ocean, such as the Aral Sea, and the Great Salt Lake though they may be referred to as 'seas', they are actually salt lakes. Despite their huge size, the oceans have been greatly affected by human activity. Pollution and overfishing are two major concerns. The Arctic is one of the most beautiful and forbidding places on Earth, where temperatures regularly plunge well below zero and the time between sunset and sunrise is sometimes measured in months rather than hours. Yet despite these difficult conditions a variety of people and animals have adapted to thrive at the top of the world, including vibrant communities and iconic animal species. The Arctic Ocean is facing incredible pressures. As goes the Arctic, so goes the planet. There is no single Arctic treaty, so it is up to the Global Community to save this vital part of our planet. And this is one of the reasons for creating the planetary biodiversity zone. Oceans add considerable inertia to the climate system, slowing it down, and hence increase the time it takes the system to respond to change. Responsive change in ocean circulation patterns, such as the thermohaline circulation system that controls the behaviour of the Atlantic Gulf Stream, can also significantly modify the primary changes in atmospheric circulation. Greenland ice cores and ocean sediments confirm that such modifications can have dramatic effects on regional climates, effects that may occur within the space of decades, and can last for centuries. Hence oceans add an additional major element of irreversibility, on human time scales, to global climate change. Historically, CO[2] taken up in the biological carbon cycle was approximately equal to the CO[2] released. The global production of carbon fixed by plants was then equal to the global ecosystem respiration that comprised respiration by plants plus respiration by all other living things on land. On a global basis, there was no net flux of carbon to or from the atmosphere, and there was not net change in carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems (globally). Unfortunately, human activities have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. Deforestation is the removal of trees, often as a result of human activities. It is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Both the rotting and burning of wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere. A rainforest is a biome, a forested area where the annual rainfall is high. Some mention 1000 mm of rain each year as a limit of what is a rainforest, but that definition is far from complete. Rainforests are primarily found in tropical climates, although there are a few examples of rainforests in temperate regions as well. As well as prodigious rainfall, many rainforests are characterized by a high number of resident species, and a great biodiversity. It is also estimated that rainforests provide up to 40% of the oxygen currently found in the atmosphere. Forests store large amounts of CO[2], buffering the CO[2] in the atmosphere. The carbon retained in the Amazon basin is equivalent to at least 20% of the entire atmospheric CO[2]. Destruction of the forests would release about four fifths of the CO[2] to the atmosphere. Half of the CO[2] would dissolve in the oceans but the other half would be added to the 16% increase already observed this century, accelerating world temperature increases. Another impact of tropical rainforest destruction would be to reduce the natural production of nitrous oxide (NO). Tropical forests and their soils produce up to one half of the world's NO which helps to destroy stratospheric ozone. Any increase in stratospheric ozone would warm the stratosphere but lower global surface temperatures. Dense tropical forests also have a great effect on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration and the reduction of surface runoff. With dense foliage, about a third of the rain falling on the forest never reached the ground, being re-evaporated off the leaves. Today there is a net loss of biomass through: a) deforestation and land use conversion b) worldwide burning of fossil fuels We have shown in this report that several events have contributed to the planetary state of emergency: [51] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] A) widespread poverty and hunger in more than half the world population B) The global warming of the planet due to human activities C) Climate change D) Economic and military invasion of nations by the United States and NATO E) Absence of fair and democratic global governance at the United Nations and European Union F) Our global environment and global life-support systems are threatened by: * any of the above mentioned events * pollution worldwide * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads over the bottom of the Indian ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave in 2004. [52] [cid:part6.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it. * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. [53] [cid:part7.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] The Global Community is now applying more emphasis on the urgent need from the people of all nations to give everyone essential services. [54] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Today, earquakes, cyclones and other natural disasters, as well as human made global destruction and disasters, require a rapid and efficient response from the world to help those in needs. We need to be organized and ready to help. We need all nations to be a part of this Global Movement to Help. [55] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Great ocean currents swirl around the Earth, many of them thousands of kilometres long. Some are warm currents, some are cold. These currents have an enormous effect on the world's weather systems. Oceans also have layers of water at different temperatures. The Global Ocean has a great impact on the biosphere. The evaporation of these oceans is how we get most of our rainfall, and their temperature determines our climate and wind pattern. The Global Ocean serves many functions, especially affecting the weather and temperature. Oceans moderate the Earth's temperature by absorbing incoming solar radiation (stored as heat energy). The continuously moving ocean currents distribute this heat energy around the globe. This heats the land and air during winter and cools it during summer. Oceans support the greatest variety of life on earth, from microscopic plankton to giant whales. The deepest parts of the oceans have barely begun to be explored, and new life forms are being discovered every year by deep ocean submersible machines. The Global Community is defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. [56] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose. The definition of the Global Community concept is truly the 21st century "philosophy of life" framework, some called it the religion of the third millennium, others called it the politics of the future generations now. This definition includes all people, all life on Earth. It also implicitly says that no-one in particular owns the Earth but we all own it together. Not just us people, but all life on Earth owns it. The beginning of life stretches as far back as 4 billion years, and so Life claims its birthright of ownership of Earth. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. Since year 1985 the Global Community has organized the Global Dialogue to probe the Peoples of the world, people from all nations, as to what it will take to make living on Earth sustainable, now and for the next generations. Results were published in our Proceedings. [57] Global Proceedings of the Global Community Global Rights year one[58] Global Rights year one is a new impetus of the Global Community to educate everyone about the need for a change in thinking and of doing things amongst all nations. We need to realize what is a priority, what is the most important, and what is the least important for our survival. We need to make hard choices. We need a clear vision. We need a common vision. And we must all change! There are many important aspects of our lives we can no longer do, or should never do anymore. They are destructive. Humanity and all life can no longer afford activities that destroy life and the global environment, and certainly the military is a major one. And there are other activities we must do, thousands of them, to assure the survival of life on Earth. In view of the planetary state of emergency, which we declared a shorth while ago, we all must change, we must do things differently to give life on Earth a better survival chance. And this is what Global Rights year one is about: to establish global fundamentals and a clear vision to follow, and to offer the people of all nations the Global Movement to Help. Perhaps the Scale of Global Rights represents the strongest pillar of our vision. In 1985, the Scale of Human and Earth Rights was first proposed as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After several decades of research and development, many global dialogues, we still find the Scale as the best solution to global problems. The Scale has now been titled the Scale of Global Rights. [59] Scale of Global Rights [60]Human and Earth rights [61]Scale of Human and Earth Rights [62]Chapter X of the Global Constitution is about the Scale of Human and Earth Rights Today, we are presenting once more the Scale as the best educating tool to bring about the change the people of the world need to achieve for their own survival. Thus global rights include: * Human rights * Rights of global citizens * Earth rights * Peace and Justice rights for all life as researched and developed by the Global Community * Rights of global politics, and Earth Government * Rights of global justice for all life * Rights of global protection for all life Global rights are defined in details in the section the Scale of Global Rights. [63] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] These rights are dependent of their position on the Scale of Global Rights. The Global Community was the first in defining 'a nation', 'a global community' with respect to the concept of global rights. A nation is defined primarily by its people, its communities; arts, history, social, languages, religious and cultural aspects included. Fundamentally a nation or a state is defined as "a politically unified population occupying a specific area of land". A global community has a well defined criteria based on global symbiotical relationships. And it does not require the occupation of a specific area of land. These relationships allow a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy. The definition of the Global Community is: "The Global Community is defined as being all that exits or occurs at any location at any time between the Ozone layer above and the core of the planet below." The Global Community is this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities. And this brings us closer to define a proper, more meaningful, 21st Century criteria for sovereignty. Global Community criteria for sovereignty: * a global community is in place * the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living * the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Human and Earth Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems * a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community * a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life * Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources Now that we have established the criteria of sovereignty with its responsibility and accountability, let us see the Global Community perspective concerning the Canadian sovereignty claim of the Northwest Passage, Nunavut, Greenland, and who truly owns the North Pole region, and in fact who truly owns the Earth and all its natural resources. Without this criteria no one can claim ownership - sovereignty - of Nunavut, Greenland, the Northwest Passage and, truly, the entire North Pole region. Canada does not own the area of Nunavut or that of the North West territories. Like we have explained above putting a flag on Moon does not give you ownership. Our first explorers did not own the land just because they stepped foot on North America. Just because you put a flag on Mount Everest means you own the mountain. You dont! And the Inuit dont own Nunavut either. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. So 82.4% of Nunavut is practically empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. If someday a colony is set up on the Moon will that mean the people making up the colony owns the Moon? No it does not! The people of the colony could say they own an area large enough for their own survival, a sustainable living. Not the entire Moon. Similarly for the Inuit people. They dont own Nunavut. The Inuit are in large part being taken care of by the Canadian Government. They are being used by the Canadian Government to claim soverighty of Nunavut. Somewhat like the colony on the Moon would be taken care of by the nation on Earth. So the Inuit people can only claim to own a small area around their communities. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, the air, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property or a commodity. Land is not a product of labor. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to all natural resources. Global Community fundamentals concerning the question of "Who owns the Earth?" has been integrated into our global economic system that stipulates: you own a property, use it, share it, or lose it This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world. You own property because the owners could not pay. Use that property, or share it or lose it. Wall Street is cerainly a prime owner of property and is included with this principle. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. Global rights and the taxation of natural resources can each be used to create and protect this biodiversity zone in Nunavut and over the entire North Pole region. The Inuit government and the Canadian government are invited to start the process of creating such zone. The Global Community has set aside a specific region to create and protect a biodiversity zone in the North Pole region. [cid:part11.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Map #1 ( see enlargement [64] Planetary Biodiversity Zone: North Pole region ) Planetary Biodiversity Zone: North Pole region Artwork by Germain Dufour September 26, 2008 The Global Community has also established a planetary biodiversity zone now under the protection of the Global Protection Agency (GPA). [cid:part12.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Map #2 ( see enlargement [65] Planetary Biodiversity Zone: oceans, rivers, lakes and forests ) Planetary Biodiversity Zone: oceans, rivers, lakes and forests Artwork by Germain Dufour September 25, 2008 We have declared a moratorium on all development in the zone. The planetary biodiversity zone includes : * North Pole region * South Pole region * all oceans * all forests * all lakes * all rivers and connecting streams * all wetlands and grasslands * living organisms and ecosystems in all of the above The people of all nations are required to respect the moratorium until global law [66] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] has been completed to include regulations to be enforced by the GPA.[67] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. It is well known that the planet's diversity is being threatened. The effect that human activities have had on our planet have become a major concern. Erosion, pollution, desertification, increased rates of extinction can all be traced back to human activities and are now starting to completely change the future of life on the planet. Adding to this problem of climate change, warmer temperatures, is the melting of the Polar Cap due to the U.S.A. military exploding nuclear war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. [68] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth by exploding nuclear bombs to melt glaciers and North Pole cap. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. In view of the planetary state of emergency, the Global Community says: for the protection of all life on Earth, a preventive principle is our only alternative. You are guilty until you can prove otherwise. Global Law must be applied. The United States must pay for the independent investigation. Would you agree? Our rapid human population expansion, need, greed, and ignorance, have caused alarming destruction of the Earth's living resources. As a result, thousands of life forms have been threatened, endangered, or extinct. At current rate of destruction over 50% of species of life forms will be wiped out within 50 years seriously compromising the integrity of life on Earth. In fact, this magnitude of destruction will have unknown consequences with respect to the food supply, environment, climate, and the overall well being of the planet. Human activities are responsible for most of the species extinctions, in particular destruction of plant and animal habitats, often being driven by human consumption of organic resources. When they are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food, and their habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards. The ecosystem decreases in stability as its species are made extinct and the global ecosystem is destined for collapse. Significant factors contributing to loss of biodiversity are: deforestation, overpopulation, pollution ( water pollution, air pollution, soil contamination), global warming, and climate change. Actions that affect the stability and health of the Global Community and its ecosystems need to be identified and publicly condemned. Among the most destructive of human activities are militarism and its gross expenditures, the mining of toxic materials, the manufacture of biological poisons in all forms, industrial farming, industrial fishing, and industrial forestry. Destructive technologies such as these, justified as necessary for protecting specific human populations, enriching special corporate interests, and satisfying human wants rather than needs, will lead to evergreater ecological and social disasters. The Global Community believes that to protect this ecosystem, industrial activity both inside and outside the planetary biodiversity zone must be carefully regulated. Large reserves able to maintain their ecological integrity must be adequately set aside and thorough environmental assessments must be carried out before governments decide to allow any sort of large-scale industrial activity. CAPTION: What we must do to protect life and create a planetary biodiversity zone Respect the moratorium on all development in the zone The Global Community has declared a moratorium on all development in the zone, including all drilling, military testing, and any other destructive uses of the ecosystems. The planetary biodiversity zone includes : * North Pole region * South Pole region * all oceans * all forests * all lakes * all rivers and connecting streams * all wetlands and grasslands * living organisms and ecosystems in all of the above The people of all nations are required to respect the moratorium until global law [69] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] has been completed to include regulations to be enforced by the GPA.[70] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] Reduce human population size A primary cause of ecosystem destruction and species extinctions is the human overpopulation that already far exceeds ecologically sustainable levels. Total world population, now at 6.7 billion, is inexorably climbing by 75 million a year. Every additional human is an environmental user on a planet whose capacity to provide for all its creatures is size-limited. In all lands the pressure of numbers continues to undermine the integrity and generative functioning of terrestrial, fresh water, and marine ecosystems. Our human monoculture is overwhelming and destroying Natures polycultures. Country by country, world population size must be reduced by reducing conceptions. Educate our children on the ethics that value life species Educate our childrenn on the ethics that value life species over consuming resources without restraint, and condemn the social acceptance of unlimited human fecundity. Present need to reduce numbers is greatest in wealthy countries where per capita use of energy and Earth materials is highest. A reasonable objective is the reduction to population levels as they were before the widespread use of fossil fuels; that is, to one billion or less. This will be accomplished either by intelligent policies or inevitably by plague, famine, and warfare. Ban overconsumption of Earth resources The greatest threat to the planetary biodiversity zone is the ever-increasing appropriation of the planets goods for exclusive human uses. Such appropriation and over-use, often justified by population overgrowth, steals the livelihood of other organisms. The selfish view that humans have the right to all ecosystem components air, land, water, organisms is morally reprehensible. It is wrong. Global Rights [71] [cid:part2.48F5E6C7.8560D0F5@telus.net] were researched and developed for all life on our planet, not just for ourselves as human beings. Unlike plants, we must kill to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves, but this is no license to plunder and exterminate. The accelerating consumption of Earths vital parts is a recipe for destruction of ecodiversity and biodiversity. Wealthy nations armed with powerful technology are the chief offenders, best able to reduce consumption and share with those whose living standards are lowest, but no nation is blameless. The eternal growth ideology of the market, and Wall Street, must be renounced, as well as the perverse industrial and economic policies based on it. One rational step toward curbing exploitive economic expansion is the ending of public subsidies to those industries that pollute air, land or water and/or destroy organisms and soils. A philosophy of symbiosis, of living compliantly as a member of Earths communities, will ensure the restoration of productive ecosystems. Promote global governance Concepts of governance that encourage over-exploitation and destruction of Earths ecosystems must be replaced by those beneficial to the survival and integrity of the Global Community. Everyone is asked to help. A body of environmental law and regulations that confers legal standing on the Global Communitys vital structures and functions is required. Country by country, ecologically responsible people must be elected or appointed to governing bodies. Appropriate attorney-guardians will act as defendants when ecosystems and their fundamental processes are threatened. Issues will be settled on the basis of preserving ecosystem integrity, not on preserving economic gain. Over time, new bodies of global law, policy, and administration will emerge as embodiments of the 21st Century life philosophy of the Global Community. Implementation will be the work of the Global protection Agency (GPA). Education and leadership are needed We all have a duty to spread the word by education and leadership. The initial urgent task is to awaken all people to their functional dependence on Earths ecosystems, as well as to their bonds with other species. We must all participate in Earth-wise global community activities, each playing a personal part in sustaining the marvelous surrounding reality. By promoting a quest for abiding values a culture of compliance and symbiosis with our living planet it fosters a unifying outlook. By spreading the ecological message and emphasizing humanitys shared outer reality, will open a new and promising path toward international understanding, harmony, cooperation, stability, and peace. [72]Achievements of Global Community WebNet Ltd. Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community President Earth Government ([73]short Bio) The Editor Global Information Media [74]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GD2009/gd2009globaldialogue.htm [75]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/Federation/HQ.htm [76]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/globalcommunity.htm [77]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/ [78]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GD2009/Portal2009.htm ___________________________________________________________________________________________ About this e-mail You are receiving this newsletter because you have asked to be included in our list, attended a Global Dialogue event or requested information. To stop receiving this e-mail, please e-mail: [79]globalcommunity@telus.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject. Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail0I.gif: 00000001,2a21d211,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail43.jpeg: 00000001,4dd51380,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailKR.jpeg: 00000001,718854ef,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail87.jpeg: 00000001,153b9671,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailGD.jpeg: 00000001,38eed7e0,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail3V.jpeg: 00000001,5ca2194f,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailUG.jpeg: 00000001,00555ad1,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailHP.jpeg: 00000001,24089c40,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailMF.jpeg: 00000001,47bbddaf,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail8T.jpeg: 00000001,7b59cd91,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailCN.jpeg: 00000001,1f0d0f13,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail7A.jpeg: 00000001,42c05082,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailTP.gif: 00000001,667391f1,00000000,00000000 1640. 2008-10-15 08:19:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Peter W. Thorne" , Peter.Thorne@noaa.gov, Leopold Haimberger , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , ssolomon@frii.com, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz , Professor Glenn McGregor date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:19:02 -0700 from: Karl Taylor subject: Re: Response to: David Douglass Dear Dr. Douglass, I am puzzled by your keen interest in obtaining these 7 or 8 numerical values from Fig. 6 since in no way will that allow you to independently reproduce the results in our paper. You will need to do quite a bit of work to independently assess our claims. I'm sure you will not want to undermine the independence of your assessment by relying on our method to calculate zonal means, since we might have made mistakes. I recommend you start with the original data. In fact I think if we were to share any of our processed data with you at this time, this would compromise the independence of your analysis and might be frowned on by the scientific community. A "blind", truly independent analysis by you of the raw data (which as noted by others is available to you) would be much more valuable in either substantiating our undermining our claims. By the way, I hope you got the main point of our paper. Although the new observations make some difference, the most important conclusion of our paper is that the statistical test you applied in your paper was inappropriate and led to wrong conclusions. Isn't it great when the scientific method works? Mistakes get corrected, at least eventually, when independent scientists spot the errors. Also, I agree with you that reproducing scientific results by others is a hallmark of the scientific process, and as part of our study we found that we too could apply your inappropriate statistical test to reach incorrect inferences concerning statistical significance. An appropriate test leads to the opposite conclusion. I hope you now understand some of the errors in your paper, which regretfully were not caught earlier in the review process. If you now decide to undertake an independent analysis of the data we used in our paper, this would, I'm sure, be welcomed by the scientific community. You undoubtedly will find your zonal means differ somewhat from ours unless you make exactly the same analysis choices (e.g., include the same set of stations we used). If the differences between what you get and what we got turn out to be large enough to matter (i.e., large enough to be discernible when you compare your numbers with our figure), then it would be incumbent on you to try to determine why. This would move us forward in trying to understand uncertainties in the observations. My guess is that if after doing an independent analysis of this kind, you wanted to share your results with Ben, he would likely reciprocate and provide the 7 or 8 numerical values from our paper, but of course, this would really be quite unnecessary since you should be able to easily reproduce the numbers in our paper from the raw data already available to you. In any case I will advise Ben that our processed data (not the raw data on which it is based) should be withheld at least until you have completed your independent analysis; otherwise you might be accused of being unduly influenced by us. I hope I have provided you with some helpful guidance on how you might proceed in furthering understanding of climate and climate change. Sincerely yours, Karl Taylor David Douglass wrote: > To: to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. IJoC paper, as well as > to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. > From: David Douglass > Re: request for data from fig6 > > Here are the rest of the facts > > 1. I requested the IUK data from Sherwood. He replied: > > /The data, and a paper describing the method and showing the trend > results, are available on my web site (see below). I urge you to read > the paper before using the data, as there are some important issues to > be considered. > For example, the trends are quite unreliable at some stations, but I > included as many stations as possible in order to get the most > information possible on natural variability./ > > 2. In a telephone conversation Sherwood stated that Thorne had actually > done the calculation: > > 3. I sent an email to Thorne. He replied: > > /I sent them to Dr. Santer who I believe recalculated trends using his algorithm from the netcdf files of zonal and regional averages > that I produced and sent. The differences were minimal between algorithms. > I can send you the tabular data I produced > (which will differ slightly from that published because of different trend estimation algorithm)/ > > I noted the characterization "unreliable" from Sherwood and "differ slightly" from Thorne. > This lead me to question the IUK values calculated by Santer and the request for these 7 or 8 data values. > > My dissatisfaction is not at the level of filing a complaint. > What I would like is for any author of this paper to make the IUK data in Fig 6 available to me or in some publicly available location. > > Scientific claims should be able to be reproducible by other scientists. Santer's reply does not allow me to do that. > > David Douglass > > ------------------------------------ > > . > Ben Santer wrote: >> Prof. Douglass, >> >> You have access to EXACTLY THE SAME radiosonde data that we used in >> our recently-published paper in the International Journal of >> Climatology (IJoC). You are perfectly within your rights to verify the >> calculations we performed with those radiosonde data. You are welcome >> to do so. >> >> We used the IUK radiosonde data (the data mentioned in your email) to >> calculate zonal-mean temperature changes at different atmospheric >> levels. You should have no problem in replicating our calculation of >> zonal means. You can compare your results directly with those >> displayed in Figure 6 of our paper. You do not need our "numerical >> quantities" in order to determine whether we have correctly calculated >> zonal-mean trends, and whether the IUK data show tropospheric >> amplification of surface temperature changes. >> >> Similarly, you should have no problem in replicating our calculation >> of "synthetic" MSU temperatures from radiosonde data. Algorithms for >> calculating synthetic MSU temperatures have been published by >> ourselves and others in the peer-reviewed literature. You have already >> demonstrated (in your own IJoC paper of 2007) that you are capable of >> computing synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model output. >> Furthermore, I note that in your 2007 IJoC paper, you have already >> successfully replicated our "model average" synthetic MSU temperature >> trends (which were published in the Karl et al., 2006 CCSP Report). >> >> In summary, you have access to the same model and observational data >> that we used in our 2008 IJoC paper. You have all the information that >> you require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in >> our IJoC paper are sound or unsound. >> >> You are quick to threaten your intent to file formal complaints >> against me "with the journal and other scientific bodies". If I were >> you, Dr. Douglass, I would instead focus my energies on rectifying the >> serious error in the "robust statistical test" that you applied to >> compare modeled and observed temperature trends. >> >> I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. >> IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. They >> deserve to be fully apprised of your threat to file formal complaints. >> >> Please do not communicate with me in the future. >> >> Ben Santer >> >> David Douglass wrote: >>> My request is not unreasonable. It is normal scientific discourse and >>> should not be a personal matter. >>> This is a scientific issue. You have published a paper with >>> conclusions based upon certain specific numerical quantities. As >>> another scientist, I challenge the value of those quantities. These >>> values can not be authenticated by my calculating them because I have >>> nothing to compare them to. >>> >>> If you will not give me the values of the IUK data in figure 6 then I >>> will consider filing a formal complaint with the journal and other >>> scientific bodies. >>> >>> David Douglass >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> 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) 422-3840 >> FAX: (925) 422-7675 >> email: santer1@llnl.gov >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 3832. 2008-10-15 11:07:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:07:09 +0100 from: "Alastair Grant" subject: RE: UNcertainty to: "'Tim Jickells'" , , "'J Andrews'" , "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" , "'Andrew Watkinson'" , "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" This is a great vision. Would it be helpful to supplement it with some concrete examples to show that we can root this down in reality? For example, it would be straightforward to write a few sentences linking together the brief for biodiversity and agricultural transitions pillars of ELSA with Carlos' forests and stronger links to ENV's climate science. The outline bid to Leverhulme on Earth System Science could provide another example. I'm sure that others could propose examples in their areas. Yours, Alastair _______________________________________________ Alastair Grant Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation (CEEC) Deputy Head of School, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Phone 01603 592 537 Fax 01603 591327 Mobile/Voicemail 07941579036 Home page: [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130 CEEC web page: [2]http://www.uea.ac.uk/ceec MSc programme in Applied Ecology and Conservation: [3]http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/bio/courses/postgraduates/Taught%2BCourses/aec -----Original Message----- From: Tim Jickells [mailto:t.jickells@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 September 2008 12:34 To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; 'J Andrews'; 'Alastair Grant'; 'Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)'; 'Andrew Watkinson'; 'Turner Kerry Prof (ENV)' Subject: UNcertainty I attach an attempt at trying to write up the discussion we had on Wednesday about a big idea for the VC for ENV. I have called it Uncertainty but given the possible resultant strap line of "we don't know what we're doing" I think we need a better title!. I have tried to imagine something that could stretch across much of ENV and in the process I have strayed into areas so far beyond my knowledge that there are heresies in here of considerable scale I suspect. I beg your indulgence and invite you to correct these and also consider if you still think this idea has merit in the cold light of day. I have aimed to keep this short and of course the devil is in the detail, but any pitch for the funding will initially deal with the idea not the detail. If there is a consensus to move this forward then we'll need to think how to do that. Tim Professor Tim Jickells School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK tel 01603593117, fax 01603 591327 489. 2008-10-15 12:23:33 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 15 12:23:33 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: RE: UNcertainty to: "Alastair Grant" , "'Tim Jickells'" , "'J Andrews'" , "'Burgess Jacquelin Prof \(ENV\)'" , "'Andrew Watkinson'" , "'Turner Kerry Prof \(ENV\)'" We in CRU (Phil, Tim and myself) , think this encapsulates the concept that might fire the potential funders. Some general examples as Alastair says , would give it more substance. For us an emphasis linking science to impacts (especially water) could fit the bill. This plays to a lot of ENV and CRU strengths - in the observational data, access to model output (and UKCIP08) and the use of both in impacts models. We in CRU have some experience in the latter,perhaps more than others in ENV. One key aspect is being at the start of impact projects, so we can inform the sector of what is possible observationally and what the models can and can't do. We have discussed the potential links between CRU and ENV and have identified a number of individual. I will contact them and discuss a possible meeting to take this forward. cheers Keith et al. At 11:07 15/10/2008, Alastair Grant wrote: This is a great vision. Would it be helpful to supplement it with some concrete examples to show that we can root this down in reality? For example, it would be straightforward to write a few sentences linking together the brief for biodiversity and agricultural transitions pillars of ELSA with Carlos forests and stronger links to ENVs climate science. The outline bid to Leverhulme on Earth System Science could provide another example. Im sure that others could propose examples in their areas. Yours, Alastair _______________________________________________ Alastair Grant Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation (CEEC) Deputy Head of School, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK Phone 01603 592 537 Fax 01603 591327 Mobile/Voicemail 07941579036 Home page: [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130 CEEC web page: [2]http://www.uea.ac.uk/ceec MSc programme in Applied Ecology and Conservation: [3]http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/bio/courses/postgraduates/Taught%2BCourses/ aec -----Original Message----- From: Tim Jickells [[4]mailto:t.jickells@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 26 September 2008 12:34 To: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk; 'J Andrews'; 'Alastair Grant'; 'Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV)'; 'Andrew Watkinson'; 'Turner Kerry Prof (ENV)' Subject: UNcertainty I attach an attempt at trying to write up the discussion we had on Wednesday about a big idea for the VC for ENV. I have called it Uncertainty but given the possible resultant strap line of we dont know what were doing I think we need a better title!. I have tried to imagine something that could stretch across much of ENV and in the process I have strayed into areas so far beyond my knowledge that there are heresies in here of considerable scale I suspect. I beg your indulgence and invite you to correct these and also consider if you still think this idea has merit in the cold light of day. I have aimed to keep this short and of course the devil is in the detail, but any pitch for the funding will initially deal with the idea not the detail. If there is a consensus to move this forward then well need to think how to do that. Tim Professor Tim Jickells School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK tel 01603593117, fax 01603 591327 -- 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/ 2647. 2008-10-15 13:13:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Oct 15 13:13:23 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: GCOS report to: Jo, I've added these numbers in. I've also sent the forms back to you - so they should be with you tomorrow. When you see David you could suggest producing report like the Swiss one for the UK. As and when copies got around, we would likely find out more of what is going on in the UK that is relevant to GCOS. I still need to read through the report once more. I also need to check that I have reformatted the text OK. I hope to do this later today or first thing tomorrow. I will be able to make modifications over the weekend if you or Paul send me anything - and get a final version to you on Monday before leaving about lunch time. Cheers Phil At 18:24 14/10/2008, David Meldrum wrote: Hi Jo: Apols, on the road - with Jon in fact, in Cape Town. The stats are: 1. 2 Arctic platforms 2. 10 Arctic platforms 3. 2 4. 2 Hope this helps. Cheers David =============== David Meldrum Leader, Technology Development & Chairman, Data Buoy Cooperation Panel Scottish Association for Marine Science Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory Dunbeg Oban PA37 1QA Scotland tel: (+44) 1631 559000 fax: (+44) 1631 559001 direct: (+44) 1631 559273 mobile: (+44) 7774 690630 mail: dtm@sams.ac.uk web: [1]http://www.sams.ac.uk =============== +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS) is registered in Scotland as a Company Limited by Guarantee (SC009292) and is a registered charity (9206). There are two wholly owned subsidiary companies: SAMS Research Services Ltd, a Limited Company (SC224404) and the European Centre for Marine Biotechnology, a Company Limited by Guarantee (SC205318). All companies in the group are registered in Scotland and share a registered office at Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory, Oban PA37 1QA. The content of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of SAMS unless specifically stated. Please note that all email traffic is monitored for purposes of security and spam filtering. As such individual emails may be examined in more detail. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> "Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA)" 10/14/08 12:16 PM >>> Hi David, I tried to give you a ring this morning, but you weren't in. I'm just writing to ask if you received the e-mail from Jon Turton (attached below for you information) last week, and whether you would be able to provide us with this information today? It would be a great help if you could, as we need to get the report finalised as soon as possible. Best wishes, Jo From: Turton, Jon [[2]mailto:jon.turton@metoffice.gov.uk] Sent: 08 October 2008 17:17 To: David Meldrum Cc: Phil Jones; Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) Subject: RE: GCOS report Hi David, Can I ask that you provide some input on SAMS difters to go into this UNFCCC report for Defra. Specifically for drifting buoys operated by SAMS: 1. number of platforms presently operating 2. number expected to be operating in 2010 3. number providing data to the intl data centres 4. number of platforms with complete historical record available in intl data centres For 3 this would include those on GTS where data gets picked up by NOAA and -> ICOADS For 4 it may be all those for which data goes to GTS and any others that get submitted by SAMS in delayed-mode. If possible could you get numbers to Jo and Phil by the end of the week. If you could reply directly to Jo and Phil that would be appreciated. thanks Jon ________________________________ From: Turton, Jon Sent: 08 October 2008 17:02 To: 'Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA)' Cc: Phil Jones Subject: RE: GCOS report Jo, Phil, I have made various changes that I feel reasonably confident about, see attached with additional tracked changes. I'll pass on to our land observing people to review the surface land/radiation aspects that I am less familiar with. I'll also ask David Meldrum at SAMS to reply on the numbers of SAMS drifters. He will know and will be putting this info together for the WMO-IOC DBCP just now anyway. best regards Jon ________________________________ From: Thorpe, Jo (CEOSA) [[3]mailto:Jo.Thorpe@defra.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 07 October 2008 11:21 To: Turton, Jon Cc: Phil Jones Subject: GCOS report Dear Jon, Apologies for having to bother you about the GCOS report again. As you know, we've been having trouble finalising it (unfortunately the Met Office Govt Services informed us last week that they couldn't help), but Phil Jones has kindly offered to help us out. We're therefore working with Phil to obtain the last few contributions needed and re-format the document according to the guidelines. In this regard, I'd be very grateful if you could look through the entries that the Met Office is responsible for (particularly in the atmospheric variables tables) and: 1. Fill in any gaps marked with a **?** with a number (even if it's zero) 2. Confirm that any numbers given as x + y + z can be consolidated into a single number (the GCOS secretariat ultimately needs single numbers in each cell of the tables, so I need to confirm that those given in the tables now can simply be summed to get the total). Any information that you can supply in response to the other questions/requirements marked in yellow in the document would also be much appreciated. It would be a great help if you could modify the document using track changes and return it to Phil and I by the end of the week. Many thanks again for your help with this, Jo <<20081001_UK GCOS report for Defra pjm (2).doc>> ______________________ Joanna Thorpe Climate Science and Stratospheric Ozone Team Climate, Energy and Ozone: Science and Analysis (CEOSA) Division Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Zone 3E, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AL Tel: 0207 238 3384 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1451. 2008-10-15 13:24:01 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Pete Lamb" , jimx04@lzu.cn date: Wed Oct 15 13:24:01 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: CRU Temperature Problem to: hjp@lzu.edu.cn Dear Jianping, The data we have for Mangya (51886) have come from CMA. I'm attaching a recent paper which discusses Chinese temperatures and possible urbanization influences. Reading the paper you will see that the Chinese data is a new homogenized station developed by Qingxiang Li from CMA. I'd suggest you contact Li. His email is . Li will have the homogeneity adjusted version of this series, if it needed adjusting. Send him the figure. From a look at the figure, it seems as though the purple series has been adjusted compared to the CRU version. Have you compared the series for 51886 with neighbouring sites in China? Best Regards Phil At 10:48 15/10/2008, hjp@lzu.edu.cn wrote: Dear Prof. Jones I am writing to you about the difference between CRU and CMA (China Meteorological Administration) surface station observation data for 51886 (38.15o, 90.51 o). We found that the increasing of this station observed temperature is much higher than CRU reanalysis data (see attached plot). Recently, Dr. Peter Lamb visited us and discussed this difference. He suggests me to send email to you about this problem and ask your help. Because of human activity, I think the CMA observation data is right and CRU may be over-correction the value of temperature. Can you give us some suggestion for qualification and uncertainty of CRU as well as CMA data? We are looking for to hearing from you. Best Wishes; Jianping Huang -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. Jianping Huang Professor and Dean College of Atmospheric Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou, China, 730000 Tel: (0931)8914282; Fax: (0931)8914278 email: hjp@lzu.edu.cn [1]http://climate.lzu.edu.cn/~jhuang ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 936. 2008-10-16 11:47:21 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:47:21 -0400 from: Judith Lean subject: Re: Why are the temperature data from Hadley different from NASA? to: Phil Jones Dear Phil, THANK YOU so much- I really appreciate your detailed and thorough reply. I know from my own experience that it can be extraordinarily time consuming to reply to everyone's email requests for information.... but I really wanted Yousif to have a proper response since he is involved with AAPG (Americ. Assoc. of Petrogleum Geologist) at whose meeting, last April, Eric Barron organized a climate symposium to convey to them the current understanding of causes of climate change, to show them that the sun is not the cause of recent warming! Yousif was one of the very helpful and enthusiastic AAPG officials who helped organize this session...in case you are not aware of AAPG, they have had, until recently, a firm organizational position against the role of GHGs in climate change which is why Eric is fostering efforts to better information them about current understanding, and Yousif, as one of the officials, is a willing and welcome conduit in this and the result will hopefully be a more balanced AAPG statement about climate change. Thanks again, and I hope all is well with you (despite the financial collapse of the modern world!). Judith On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Phil Jones wrote: Hi Mike, Judith and Yousif, Mike has basically answered the question. The GISS group average surface T data into 80 equal area boxes across the world. The UK group (CRU/MOHC) grid the data into 5 by 5 degree lat/long boxes, as does NCDC. These griddings don't allow so much extrapolation of data - no extrapolation beyond the small grid box. The US groups also calculate the globe as one domain, whereas we in the UK use (NH+SH)/2. This also makes some difference as most of the missing areas are in the SH, and currently the NH is warmer than the SH with respect to 1961-90. Our rationale for doing what we do is that it is better to estimate the missing areas of the SH (which we do by tacitly assuming they are the average of the rest of the SH) from the rest of the SH as opposed to the rest of the world. The Arctic is a problem now. With less sea ice, we are getting SST data in for regions for which we have no 1961-90 averages - because it used to sea ice (so had no measurements). We are not using any of the SST from the central Arctic in summer. So we are probably underestimating temperatures in the recent few years. We're working on what we can do about this. There are also more general SST issues in recent years. In 1990, for example, almost all SST values came from ships. By 2000 there were about 20% from Buoys and Drifters, but by 2008 this percentage is about 85%. We're also doing comparisons of the drifters with the ships where both are plentiful, as it is likely that drifters measure a tenth of one degree C cooler than ships, and the 1961-90 period is ship-based average. New version of the dataset coming in summer 2009. All the skeptics look at the land data to explain differences between datasets and say urbanization is responsible for some or all of the warming. The real problem is the marine data at the moment. Attaching a recent paper on urbanization and effects in China. Cheers Phil At 22:08 15/10/2008, Michael Mann wrote: Hi Judith, Its nice to hear from you, been too long (several years??). My understanding is that the differences arise largely from how missing data are dealt with. For example, in Jim et al's record the sparse available arctic data are interpolated over large regions, whereas Phil an co. either use the available samples or in other versions (e.g. Brohan et al) use optimal interpolation techniques. The bottom line is that Hansen et al 'j05 I believe weights the high-latitude warming quite a bit more, which is why he gets a warmer '05, while Phil and co find '98 to be warmer. But Phil can certainly provide a more informed and complete answer! mike p.s. see you at AGU this year?? On Oct 15, 2008, at 5:03 PM, Judith Lean wrote: Hi Yousif, Many apologies for not replying sooner to your email - but I've only just returned from travel and am still catching up with email. Unfortunately, I am simply a "user" of the surface temperature data record and not an expert at all, so cannot help you understand the specific issues of the analysis of the various stations that produce the differences that you identify. I too would like to know the reason for the differences. Fortunately, there are experts who can tell us, and I am copying this email to Mike Mann and Phil Jones who are such experts. Mike and Phil (hi! hope you are both well!), can you please, please help us to understand these differences that Yousif points out in the GISS and Hadley Center surface temperature records (see two attached articles). Many thanks, for even a brief answer, or some reference. Judith On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Yousif K Kharaka wrote: Judith: I hope you are doing well (these days OK would be good!) at work and personally. Can you help me to understand the huge discrepancy (see below) between the temperature data from the Hadley Center and GISS? Any simple explanations, or references that I can read on this topic? I certainly would appreciate your help on this. Best regards. Yousif Kharaka Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist Phone: (650) 329-4535 U. S. Geological Survey, MS 427 Fax: (650) 329-4538 345, Middlefield Road Mail: [1]ykharaka@usgs.gov Menlo Park, California 94025, USA ----- Forwarded by Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI on 10/08/2008 10:42 AM ----- Yousif K Kharaka/WRD/USGS/DOI 10/06/2008 02:07 PM To "Dr David Jenkins" <[2]jenkins@chartwood.com > cc [3]allyson_anderson@energy.senate.gov, [4]drahovzal@uky.edu, [5]dvance@arcadis-us.com, [6]ebarron@jsg.utexas.edu, "'Gene Shinn'" <[7]eshinn@marine.usf.edu>, [8]jarmenrock@gmail.com, [9]jblank@aapg.org, [10]Jeffrey@LevineOnLine.com, [11]jjones@vanoperating.com, [12]julie.kupecz@shell.com, [13]pgrew@unlnotes.unl.edu, [14]rick-bsr@tyler.net, [15]scott.tinker@beg.utexas.edu, [16]tpaexpl@aol.com, [17]w.a.morgan@conocophillips.com Subject Why are the temperature data from Hadley different from NASA? [18]Link David and all: One advantage (or great disadvantage if you are very busy!) of membership in GCCC is that you are forced to investigate topics outside your areas of expertise. For some time now, I have been puzzled as to why global temperature data from the British Hadley Centre are different from those reported by NASA GISS, especially in the last 10 years. GISS reports that 2005 was the warmest year (see first attachment) on record, and that 2007 tied 1998 for the second place. The Hadley group continues reporting 1998 (a strong El Nino year) as having the highest global temperature, and then showing temperature decreases thereafter. The two groups report their temperatures relative to different time intervals (1951-1980 for GISS; 1961-1990 for Hadley), but much more important is the fact that GISS data include temperatures from the heating Arctic that are excluded by others (see second attachment). If you are interested in the topic of sun spots, the 11-year irradiance cycle, and solar forcing versus AGHGs, see the first attachment for what NASA has to say. We may need help on this complex topic from a "true climate scientists", such as Judith Lean! Cheers. Yousif Kharaka Yousif Kharaka, Research Geochemist Phone: (650) 329-4535 U. S. Geological Survey, MS 427 Fax: (650) 329-4538 345, Middlefield Road Mail: [19]ykharaka@usgs.gov Menlo Park, California 94025, USA -- 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: [20]mann@psu.edu University Park, PA 16802-5013 website: [21]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html "Dire Predictions" book site: [22]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.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 [23]p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4007. 2008-10-16 14:03:19 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Keith Briffa" , "Philip Brohan" , "Rob Allan" , t.osborn@uea.ac.uk date: Thu Oct 16 14:03:19 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Possible NERC Consortium bid to: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk, "Chris Turney" Chris, You seem to have thought of all the useful groups looking at high-resolution proxies for the last 500 years in the UK - so Edinburgh/St Andrews and UEA, as well as some US groups. The other international groups would be AIMS in Townsville (Janice Lough) and maybe Kim Cobb (tropical corals). The ship logbook work is likely to yield detail for the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. I'm also involved in an EU project looking at the La Plata Basin in South America. Most of this is about instrumental and modelling data, but there is a small paleo component in the project. I've no idea what this will produce, but I was keen to limit this to high-freq proxies from the recent past. Summer 2009 seems a long way off, but need to plan fairly soon. To get anything to feed into IPCC AR5 (due for 2013) you'd need to be thinking of submission by end of 2011, so with a July 09 submission and a start almost a year later, we'd be lucky to get anything major into AR5. Positive yes from me as well. Cheers Phil At 13:29 16/10/2008, K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk wrote: Chris the immediate answer is that we would certainly like to join this initiative. In fact we were talking here of the way to push a similar idea. Following a NERC meeting in London some months ago , we have been thinking about developing the idea of extended instrumental/palaeo data sets to explore the extent to which future changes (through an improved estimation of effective climate sensitivity and the objective exclusion of specific climate model simulations by comparison with the extended data sets) might be better constrained. Rowan Sutton made it clear that this approach was the only one he (in his new role of NERC "Climate" chief)would consider worth proposing as the basis of a possible consortium bid. At this meeting I had preliminary discussions with Sandy Tudhope and we envisaged possibly doing something like this in collaboration with the new, expanding Edinburgh group - though since then, Simon Tett and Gabbi Hegerl have acquired some funding to do new HadCM3 simulations looking at the sensitivity to specific volcanic forcing estimates - funded by UGAMP or some such. We can discuss details as you wish later, but for now our initial response is a very definite yes and I would expect to have Tim Osborn involved along with Phil and I in any project we devise. As for time frame - I am in no doubt that The summer 2009 suggestion is the optimum one - and we would find it hard to contribute much in terms of practical input if we went for the earlier approach. very best wishes Keith > Dear Keith and Phil, > > I don't know whether you remember but some time ago I contacted you > regarding a NERC Consortium bid looking at past climates over the past > millennium. I was wondering whether you might still be interested? > I'm sorry for the delay in getting back in contact; since arriving at > Exeter I've been hit sideways with admin and am only now getting my > head above water. > > I've been in discussion with Rob Allan and Phil Brohan at the Met > Office and Peter Cox here at Exeter. We're keen to pursue a similar > approach to the one I outlined to you last year though with a twist. > Essentially, Rob and Phil, through ACRE, have been assembling a large > number of new historical climate observations, going back back to > around 1780; and are collaborating with a NOAA project (led by Gil > Compo) to produce a climate reanalysis covering the last 100 years. > This data will go into the usual international terrestrial and marine > databanks (ICOADS, ISPD etc) and thus provide the 'fuel' for the > historical surface-input reanalyses that Gil is doing, linked to > ACRE's activities. The first full version of the 20th Century > Reanalysis Project (1892-present) will be released into the public > domain early next year. Future planned historical surface-input > reanalyses are the global Surface Input Reanalysis for Climate > Applications (SIRCA) (1840s-2011) and an even longer global effort > that will be most reliable over the North Atlantic-European Region > from the mid 18th-early 19th Century to present. > > The scheme we're plotting is to fuse together instrumental > observations, non-instrumental observations and proxies, for modelling > of Earth climate system. The proxies will let us check the new > observations for biases, the observations will let us check the > proxies' response to climate is stable over long periods, and the long > reanalysis will let us investigate the stability of teleconnections > and reduce the uncertainty of past reconstructions. Rather than focus > on just the southern hemisphere as I originally suggested, the > proposal would take a global perspective, but keep the timeframe to > the last 500 years; we're now developing good proxy and historical > records for the southern hemisphere over this period, thereby allowing > us to directly compare north and south. The aims would be to better > model the climate system (and carbon-feedbacks) and feed our better > understanding into the Met Office model. Ideally, we'd like to > generate results that could feed into the next IPCC report. > > The sort of project outlined above would be far too large for a > standard grant. As a result, we'd need to go for a Consortium > grant. As part of a bid we'd be looking to have 2 other UK > institutions involved plus some international collaborators. Would > you be interested in getting involved? It would be great to have you > on board. We'd also be looking to work up the coral datasets and are > approaching Rob Wilson at St Andrews. With this team, we'd be able > to weave a fantastic array of historical, tree ring and coral records > into the bid. > > Following on from the above, you're probably aware of the Tett et al. > paper "The impact of natural and anthropogenic forcings on climate > and hydrology since 1550" published in Climate Dynamics last year; in > it they suggest the earliest > anthropogenic signal of climate change should be detected in the > tropics. A further aim could be to undertake a formal detection > study. We're approaching Ed Cook and Rosanne D'Arrigo to explore > whether they'd be interested in collaborating as Project Partners, > feeding in their fabulous Asian monsoonal records (funded by the NSF); > this would help complement the coral work and extend the tropical > datasets inland. There are several other international collaborators > we are also considering approaching but would welcome any suggestions > you might have. > > If you're interested, we have two choices of deadline: the 1 December > and 1 July (2009). I'm hesitant to go for the former given the > timescale but would be keen to give it a go if you were enthusiastic. > What do you think? > > All the best, > > Chris > **************************************************** > Professor Chris Turney > > Author of Ice, Mud and Blood: Lessons from Climates Past > Popular science website: > [1]www.christurney.com > Journal of Quaternary Science Asian and Australasian Regional Editor > > School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources > The University of Exeter > Exeter > Devon > EX4 4RJ > UK > > Times Higher University of the Year 2007-08 > > Home page: > [2]www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/geography/people/staff/c_turney/main.shtml > E-mail: c.turney@exeter.ac.uk > Office Tel.: +44 (0)1392 263331 > Fax.: +44 (0)1392 263342 > > **************************************************** > > Slartibartfast: Science has achieved some wonderful things of course, > but I'd far rather be happy than right any day > Arthur Dent: And are you? > Slartibartfast: No. Thats where it all falls down of course. > Arthur Dent: Pity. It sounded like quite a good lifestyle otherwise. > > The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams > > **************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3016. 2008-10-17 12:30:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 17 12:30:26 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Parliamentary Question- Government funding to CRU to: "Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)" Kathryn, Good - nothing to do, for the moment. Don't read too much into my note about the UEA/CRU relationship. CRU is part of the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) which is part of UEA. Issue is that CRU is more widely known outside the UK than ENV and even UEA, but a number of people in ENV and UEA don't seem to appreciate this. Useful to know if you do find out any more about this MP. See you on the 3rd. Cheers Phil At 20:06 16/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil, Thanks for your prompt reply. I found out after emailing you that wed had in three PQs on the same subject and after some discussion decided that we could offer a nil return as the wording specifically relates to grants and subsidies which our finance people have told us that research contracts do not fall into (this is more related to funding from research councils etc). So no need to do any work but interesting to note your point re the UEA and CRU relationship. Ill let you know if we get anything else coming from this gentleman! Kind Regards, Kathryn From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 16 October 2008 15:54 To: Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA); C Goodess Subject: Re: Parliamentary Question- Government funding to CRU Kathryn, We'll try and send you something tomorrow. Can I clarify some things? I presume you just want to know about Govt Depts (i.e. not NERC and other research councils and not other UK funding bodies like the EA)? If you want a full list of everything, this won't be possible as our admin person is away this and next week. Also there is no money directly to CRU - all goes to UEA. This applies for all our grants and contracts - none come directly to CRU. I wish sometimes that they did, but UEA deals with everything. This would be the same with any UK University Dept. The only major one with DEFRA since 1998 (apart from UKCIP) is the LINK project - which BADC now have and run. We had this from the early 1990s through to about 3-4 years ago. We have no subsidies - all are grants which we get or don't get through competitive tenders or grant calls from the research councils. No idea why he's asked this. It could be he's had questions from a constituent who has been looking at blog sites. There is a belief in the blogosphere that govts just shower places like CRU with money, but believe you me we have to write proposals like everyone else! We don't just say to the govt, the climate's changing and govt says great here's a few hundred K. Cheers Phil At 14:38 16/10/2008, Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA) wrote: Hi Phil and Clare, Wonder if you could help me! Ive just had a Parliamentary Question in from Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon)- asking how much funding by way of grants and subsidies Government has provided to CRU since 1998. Deadline for a response is 11am. on Monday. The WG contract funding is stipulated as just for UEA in the contract and not CRU specifically; Phil could you confirm that this is correct? If there are any contracts that have had with you since 1998 that I might not know about it would also be helpful to know what they were...Ill check on the system though. Do you have any idea why this MP might want to know? Kathryn Kathryn Humphrey Domestic Impacts/Adaptation Evidence Adapting to Climate Change Programme Defra tel 0207 238 3362 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4660. 2008-10-17 16:59:05 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 17 16:59:05 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: global temperatures to: "Bob Eagle" Bob, Water vapour content is rising - see the attached. This is Figure 3.21 from the IPCC WG1 Report from 2007. The second paper shows that surface specific humidity is also going up around the world since the 1970s. This sort of data are not so readily available before this date. Also the paper shows that RH is not going up. Specific humidity is going up because temperatures are and RH is staying roughly the same. Climate models have always said - even for simulations of the last Ice Age and the 22cnd century, that RH remains roughly the same. This is one of the first papers to show this observationally - albeit for only ~30 years, but this is all the data we have. Why all this happens is due to the Claussius-Clapeyron relationship. On your theoretical reasons: these have nothing to do with relationships between CO2 and temperature. The confidence comes from simple physics. More CO2 means higher temperature, it has nothing to with how well models correlate with historic data. Also, if you look at many scenarios of future temperature change, the emissions scenario makes very little difference until 2040. This means that what we do now will have hardly any effect on temperature increases until 2040. The next 30 or so years are predetermined. There will be variability from year to year, but the level for the 2040s is essentially independent of the emissions scenario. This is why the sooner we start doing something about CO2 levels the sooner our children we see some effect. Cheers Phil At 14:29 16/10/2008, you wrote: Many thanks Phil. One can find all sorts of comments through googling and most of them are not worth reading - but on occasion one picks up a site which does make interesting points. One such is [1]http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20 on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric% 20CO2 You are possibly familiar with it. There are good theoretical reasons for CO2 to be a greenhouse gas but there are limits to the warming that it will provide. It has been assumed that a warmer troposphere will be a wetter one and therefore that the impact of CO2 will be re-inforced by water vapour. Yet the water content of the troposphere appears not to be rising. The above site shows that the warming that did occur from about 1974 to about 1998 seems to have ceased. Therefore there is a question about the direction that will be taken in the future - yes the warming trend may be re-established, perhaps as a consequence of further increases in CO2 levels, but the picture is far from certain. There are theoretical reasons why CO2 levels in excess of some figure - perhaps around present levels - will provide the maximum heating effect in the absence of indirect influences. Therefore further increases in CO2 will not in themselves create extra warming. Over the past 9 years it appears that warming has ceased. The experts appear to be confident that the warming trend will become re-established - on what is that confidence based? Is it simply through the brilliant models which correlate so well with the historical data? Best Bob -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 13 October 2008 15:38 To: Bob Eagle Subject: RE: global temperatures Bob, You're wrong on a few points here. The 1997/98 El Nino generated the greatest response in global surface temperatures compared to any other in the 20th century - because it was the biggest El Nino event. The 0.2 deg C per decade T increase is what has happened over the last 2 decades and is what is predicted to happen over the next 2-3 decades. The rate does increase for future decades. CO2 is higher now than it has been for the last 800,000 years and probably for the last few millennia since the start of the Quaternary Era. When you talk about CO2 levels falling and temperatures rising, it is important to have temperatures measured around the world. You can't assume what the global T was from Greenland or the Antarctic ice cores. On glacial timescales they vary out of phase with one another. We use trees where they respond to temperature - it is a simple as that. If we core some trees and they don't respond to temperature we don't use them. They are still in datasets though, as they may be usful for something else or someone else. Cheers Phil At 21:24 09/10/2008, you wrote: >Many thanks for this speedy response! > >Looking at the 1998 El Nino event it seems to have generated a greater >temperature anomaly than earlier ones - but probably not to a significant >extent. I note the estimate of 0.2 deg C per decade - that is lower than >the IPCC 4 median estimate isn't it? The records suggest that during the >course of the last few million years CO2 levels have been much greater than >they are now - maybe an order of magnitude greater. Yet the earth cooled >and then CO2 levels fell. Are these observations entirely consistent with >the current mathematical models? CO2 of itself will have an effect which is >asymptotic to neutral - do we have an estimate for the level at which this >occurs? > >Many thanks for the explanation about tree ring width. We use only >northerly or high sites for temperature proxies - is it the case that some >analysts reject most of these data? Could you direct me to a plot which >shows all the data from the best sites by any chance? > >All the best > >Bob > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 07 October 2008 10:51 >To: bob@greagle.co.uk >Subject: FW: global temperatures > > > > Bob, > > Brief answers. Global temperatures vary a lot from year to year. Much > of this is due to El Nino and La Nina events. The last major El Nino > occurred in 1997/1998 and that was why 98 was so warm. We are just > finishing a major La Nina event and this has cooled the world. > Greenhouse gases warm the world at about 0.2 deg C per decade at the > moment. This is 0.02 deg C per year, nmuch smaller than the swings of > 0.1 deg C between years due El Nino and La Nina. > I also do know how trees grow. They respond to temperature and >moisture. > They have regions where they grow, so we choose sites in Europe in the > north of their zone or high up where moisture is less of a limiting factor > and temperature effects dominate. If we're trying to do precipitation then > it is the opposite - more south and lowland. So we isolate the effects by > taking samples from the extremes of their distribution. > All this is done by standard tree-ring techniques called response >function > analysis which the skeptic web sites don't seem to know about. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bob Eagle [[4]mailto:bob@greagle.co.uk] > >Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 5:48 PM > >To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) > >Subject: global temperatures > > > > > >I wonder if you could help. > > > >I note that the temperature plot for the period from 1850 to the present > >day shows that the highest temperature occurred in 1998. Since that > >year temperatures appear to have been falling. Yet CO2 levels and those > >of other greenhouse gases have continued to rise. Is this in any way > >odd? > > > >I believe you have developed an equation relating temperature at a > >particular site with tree ring width. Clearly tree growth is not > >linearly related to temperature - whilst growth may cease at low > >temperatures it will also cease at high temperatures too. Furthermore > >growth is affected by other factors such as moisture availability, > >disease, changes in sunlight and changes in soil fertility. How do you > >isolate these confounding factors when estimating temperature by > >measuring tree-ring width? > > > >With best wishes > > > >Bob > >Prof. Phil Jones >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3281. 2008-10-20 14:09:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 20 14:09:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Env.faculty] New climate degree title to: "Alan Kendall" Alan, It would be unfair to get involved in a bit with you, as I know a couple of things you don't. 1. The Arctic issue. We're getting SST data in from ships travelling around in regions where we haven't had any data from for the 1961-90 base period. We're still figuring out how to use these. However we do it, it will only raise temperatures. 2. SST is being measured differently now than it was in the 1980s. Before about 1990 it was almost exclusively from ships. Automatic instruments called drifters began to be deployed (by both research and some merchant ships). They do what the name implies - drift around - and send SST an sea-level pressure measurements back to ground stations by satellites. They work for a few years till they pack up or get beached. The issue is that they now (2008) form about 85% of the SST data coming in. With now about 15 years of overlap, we are learning that their SST measurements are about 0.1 deg C cooler than the ships - probably because on average they measure at slightly different depths than the ships. Any way the 1961-90 base period is a ship-based base period, so when the adjustments have been completed we will likely raise SST values by about 0.1 deg C now, reducing to zero gradually back to the mid-1990s. This type of adjustment has to be made, and it can only be made in retrospect. How the temperature is measured is as important as the temperature value itself. The drifters are giving us much better spatial coverage - especially the Southern Oceans. We will probably have to revise our 1961-90 averages for these regions, now we have many more observations for them - not just drifters but satellite estimates as well. I discussed this issue in my lectures to the MSc students last week. There will be a paper submitted on the work in the spring. Land data are unaffected. Measuring surface temperature is not as easy it may appear. Cheers Phil At 10:55 20/10/2008, you wrote: Dear all, I don't intend to get into a debate about this (my suggestion was made primarily on the basis that climate changes are different in varied parts of the Earth) but Phil's disparaging comment about "a few Russian mavericks" denies the existence of almost an entire group of specialists worldwide - the solar physicists - who seem to have had a particularly rough time in recent years - being demonized by AGW advocates for their views about climate that fly counter to the "IPCC consensus". I've offered my opinion on the degree title: but I won't be teaching on it and its really up to those who will contribute to decide (with advice from Admissions). The important thing is to get a degree proposal out there now and not be pipped to the post by someone else. AlanK PS Phil, I'd be willing to make a small bet with you that over the next 5 years we will have increasing evidence of a cooling - with the PDO entered into a cool phase; cycle 24 of the Sun still not officially arriving yet and increasing "Earthshine" I think I would be onto a winner. But then I'm probably a maverick! Shall we say £100 or a really good bottle of wine ? ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Phil Jones To: [2]Alan Kendall ; [3]Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) ; [4]env.faculty@uea.ac.uk Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [Env.faculty] New climate degree title Alan, The title Climate Change (no plural) is fine. It is only a few Russian mavericks, who seem to think we are heading for cooling. If the Russian govt thought this why did they bother putting a flag at the bottom of the Arctic under the North Pole! The Telegraph story below is as usual over the top with refugees fleeing into the Antarctic, but the Arctic is very warm at the moment. Cheers Phil [5]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/17/eaarctic117.xml Arctic air temperature at record high due to sea ice loss By Paul Eccleston Last Updated: 4:01pm BST 17/10/2008 The continuing loss of sea ice has pushed the air temperature in the Arctic to a record high above normal, scientists have revealed. Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted' Antarctic 'not as warm as feared' Climate change study predicts refugees fleeing into Antarctica Less summer ice - which deflects solar radiation - has resulted in a rise in both the ocean and atmospheric temperature. [] A boat skims through melting ice on the west coast of Greenland The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says autumn air temperatures in the region are at a record 5ºC (9ºF) above average. The annual NOAA report, which monitors climate change, said there has been a near-record loss of summer sea ice, though not as much as last year which was the warmest on record for the Arctic, continuing a trend that began in the mid-1960s. They also report a loss of surface ice in Greenland. Increased temperatures have an impact on both land and marine creatures and are likely to result in even less ice next year, the report says. James Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle and a lead author of the report, said: "Changes in the Arctic show a domino effect from multiple causes more clearly than in other regions. "It's a sensitive system and often reflects changes in relatively fast and dramatic ways." In 2006 the NOAA's Climate Program Office set up the Arctic Report Card as a means of monitoring changes in the Arctic atmosphere, sea ice, biology, ocean, land and Greenland. This year three of the six areas - atmosphere, sea ice, and Greenland - are coded red indicating that the changes are strongly attributed to warming. Biology, ocean and land are coded yellow, indicating mixed signals. In 2007 there were two red areas, atmosphere and sea ice, and four coded yellow. The report's chief editor Jackie Richter-Menge of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, said: "The information combines to tell a story of widespread and, in some cases, dramatic effects of an overall warming of the Arctic system." Researchers at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, part of the University of Colorado, reported last month that Arctic sea ice melted to its second-lowest level this summer. They said it is now 34 per cent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 but nine per cent above the record low set in 2007. Professor Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University and head of the Polar Physics Group, said the air temperature on the Arctic coastline would normally be 0ºC but this year and last year a larger area of water - where summer ice had disappeared - had led to a rise. "This temperature anomaly has also extended 1,000 kilometres inland towards the coasts of Alaska and Siberia and is causing the permafrost to melt and methane stored in it to leak," he said. "The warmer temperatures will also take longer to dissipate, the autumn freeze will take longer, meaning thinner ice. There is always a fluctuation in the thickness of the ice year on year and the loss this year wasn't as extreme as last year - but it was almost. "We have got to a tipping point where the breakdown of ice will lead to it disappearing altogether in the summer." Prof Wadhams said changes brought by a warmer climate were happening across the globe at all latitudes but could be most clearly seen in the Arctic. "Satellite pictures clearly show the open water where ice used to be. It is the most obvious example of climate change in action which is changing the appearance of the planet," he said. 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 At 08:36 20/10/2008, Alan Kendall wrote: Might I suggest that the degree title be Climate Changes. This would reflect that different regions of the Earth suffer very different types of change and also would hedge bets (if the Russians are correct and we are heading towards a long phase of climate cooling). May I also suggest that we consult more with DEV in that they have staff already in place (and may have additional recruitment) in this subject and could add a developing world perspective? AlanK ----- Original Message ----- From: [6]Burgess Jacquelin Prof (ENV) To: [7]env.faculty@uea.ac.uk Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 3:50 PM Subject: [Env.faculty] New climate degree title Colleagues, In the School Board discussions on Wednesday, there was general support for a new Climate BSc/MSci - but the question of what specifically it should be called was not properly discussed as we ran out of time. From the financial perspective, Climate and Society isnt sensible, as it is likely to end up in the mixed subject category like EGID which means less money per student. We would want to allow students to specialise in the science or the policy end of things if they wish. But to understand climate change, students coming from a hard science perspective need also to gain some understanding of the social, political and ethical issues behind climate change. And students coming from a softer starting point need to understand enough of the principles of the atmospheric and ocean physics and biogeochemistry to be able to base policy advice firmly on the science base. This leads us to conclude that a single title - Climate Change - with a narrative in the prospectus and a presentation at the open days that makes clear that we cover both ends of the spectrum, with scope to specialise in either or remain broad. With the two titles currently proposed, we can see a real danger of attracting the relatively small subset of applicants who see themselves as hard line scientists; a larger group of applicants looking for a climate studies type of degree, and miss the people in between who form the bulk of the ones we want to attract (the hard science applicants are really important, but are a minority). The degree title is partly a marketing tool to get applicants to look at the prospectus and see the detail of what is on offer; partly a lever to land a job after graduating. Climate Change will probably make most sense to informed 18 year olds and to their potential employers. As we need to tell Admissions very soon what we want to do for the 2009 prospectus, could you please let Chris Flack know, by the end of Tuesday (21st) if this proposal is *not* acceptable to you. Jacquie and Alastair _________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Env.faculty mailing list Env.faculty@uea.ac.uk [8]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.faculty _______________________________________________ Env.faculty mailing list Env.faculty@uea.ac.uk [9]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.faculty Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5076. 2008-10-20 14:26:04 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 20 14:26:04 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: global temperatures to: Stefan Rahmstorf Stefan, I've had no publication. Attached is my latest one on Chinese urbanization trends. Also there is this one from Nature earlier in the year. I've been mentioning some issues with surface temperatures in talks I've given recently, but these have been to students here at UEA or meetings in Spain and Switzerland. The Thompson et al paper adjustments will be included in the next update paper - due for submission in the spring next year. There is an issue mentioned in the final few sentences in this paper - relating to measurements now. The number of drifter-measured (and buoy) SST measurements now total about 85% of values (with ships making up the rest). In the late-1980s almost all SST measurements came from ships. The 1961-90 base period is based on ships. It seems as though the drifters are measuring slightly cooler than the ships. We're working on this, but if correct, an adjustment would make recent years warmer. We're also getting in SST data for the Arctic (in summer) for regions where we don't have 1961-90 base period values. So we can't use these data. We're not sure how to cope with these data. Again if we put the values in we'd make the Arctic warmer. Your person may not be referring to these issues, but these are the only things I can think off. If I'm asked about recent trends, I just say that much of the variability from year to year is due to ENSO. As you know, ENSO variability is an order of magnitude warmer on the interannual timescale than the greenhouse warming, so dominates on timescales less than 5 years. We will get another warm year when we get another big El Nino. It seems as though this La Nina keeps reasserting itself. Nino measures are probably affected by these drifter/ship issues. We're trying to work out spatial and seasonal patterns of the differences. I'm off in a few minutes to get a plane to Iceland for a meeting. I'll be back next week. Cheers Phil At 13:55 20/10/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, we have a German "skeptics-leaning" journalist here who keeps claiming in the media every few weeks that even IPCC-people admit that temperatures have not been rising over the past 10 years. When pressed he said he is referring to you. Is there any publication of yours that he is misrepresenting, or do you have an idea what specifically he is referring to? It would be helpful in debunking this person if I knew exactly what his source is; I am sure he is giving this his own well-known spin that has little to do with what you intended to say. Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf [1]www.ozean-klima.de [2]www.realclimate.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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2615. 2008-10-20 14:40:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 20 14:40:24 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: BADC contract for production of high resolution climatic to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, i.harris@uea.ac.uk Tim, Harry, Whilst I'm in Iceland can you try and come up with a plan to get the last bit of work on getting cloud updated sorted out. We all know what there is to do - it's just getting it done. I'm more than happy to write up the paper when all is done. Not replied to Bryan. Cheers Phil At 14:32 20/10/2008, Bryan Lawrence wrote: hi Phil Did you manage to get someone to work on this? I left off replying to give time for some progress! We're still getting invoice, and we're still not paying, and while that keeps the financial folk busy and happy, it's boring for those of us who get the reports :-) (probaby for you as well as me :-) It would be nice to close this up. If I understand correctly, we've got: 1) some fields done 2) some software done 3) some fields incomplete 4) some software incomplete Shall we try and setup a BADC dataset with what we've got, and see if we can get updates for those datasets going? We could then pay, say, half the invoice ... (to show willing). I'd rather do this than have Harry making the data available to some folk under the table - we do need to show to NERC that this "data management" funding has delivered some data to be managed ... Then, more importantly, what could we do to help Harry get this finished and closed up? Cheers Bryan On Wednesday 13 August 2008 16:07:58 Phil Jones wrote: > > Bryan, > Been away. All the fields are there except > cloud. Kevin Marsh knows where they are. > > What we still have to do is two things: > > 1) Get cloud updated from 2002 - this requires some more work here. We have > someone who can do this from the start of September, but only if we're not > successful with another bid. The work will only > take about 2-4 weeks. We need to > recreate lost files. > > 2) Getting the routine updating working from > when it currently ends in 2006. This > should not take more than a couple of weeks. > > The problem is that Harry is now working on something else. > > Not sure where this leaves us. Harry is giving people access from here on a > restricted site and keeping track of the those he does. > > So you have most of what was promised, and we're working as best as we > can on getting the rest done. > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 14:16 06/08/2008, Lawrence, BN (Bryan) wrote: > >Hi Phil/Tim > > > >Our finance department are asking us to > >authorise payment for the £50k project for the > >work we commissioned in 2006 to produce > >high-resolution climate data. As we have not > >received the dataset and associated software yet > >we are waiting to authorise it but more > >importantly, several of our users are now asking > >to use the up-to-date climate data. > > > >The latest update (May 08) was that Harry was > >working on this full time - also that the data > >are needed by several other projects at the CRU > >end (including the one that Harry is currently > >working on). We understand that there have been > >many quality issues to resolve, and that the > >processing and automation is also a large ongoing task. > > > >This note is to reiterate that we consider > >delivery of this dataset and associated software > >to be of high importance and to ask if you can > >push it up the priority list, both to complete > >the job, and so we can make the finance folk go away :-) > > > >Can you please let us know when you expect the > >data and software to be ready for delivery, and > >we'll advise both our contracts office and the > >UEA finance folk who I understand keep invoicing us :-) > > > >Cheers > >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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Bryan Lawrence Director of Environmental Archival and Associated Research (NCAS/British Atmospheric Data Centre and NCEO/NERC NEODC) STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Phone +44 1235 445012; Fax ... 5848; Web: home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4896. 2008-10-20 15:21:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 20 15:21:03 2008 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: MAGICC sea level rise for QUEST-GSI to: "Nigel Arnell" Hi Nigel, At 15:06 20/10/2008, you wrote: Tim, A while ago you sent me the MAGICC_AR4 spreadsheets containing global mean temperature for each of the AR4 GCMs, for a given emissions scenario (e.g. GMT_MAGICC_AR4-defDQ2x_A1B-AIM_CC-default.xls). Just to be certain that you're clear on this (I expect you are), the spreadsheet gives the MAGICC attempt at emulating the AR4 GCMs for global mean temperature, not the actual GCM global mean temperatures (which aren't available for many GCM/scenario combinations, hence using MAGICC). Do you have the same for sea level rise? Robert Nicholls needs these to rescale the sea level patterns he is obtaining from Jason Lowe. Results for the ocean thermal expansion part of sea level rise from MAGICC are attached. Two files: (1) multi-model-mean results for all SRES scenarios. (2) individual model results for A1B scenario. I can probably find the individual model results for A2, B1, and B2 too if necessary. Note, however, that I don't think they explicitly tuned to match sea level rise, therefore the fits between MAGICC and the actual GCM results may be poor. I'll ask Sarah about this and see if she has any recommendations. But despite some poorer matches, if this is all we have, then this is what we may have to use! Also, there is the ice-melt component of SLR to consider. Presumably the patterns from Jason Lowe represent only the thermal expansion / ocean circulation component, therefore the scaling should be done according to the expansion component of SLR that I've just attached. However, some additional, presumably globally uniform, SLR from ice melt should be added on top? Should I also ask Sarah if MAGICC simulates this, or have you already decided what to do about that? Best wishes Tim 948. 2008-10-21 22:45:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:45:11 +0100 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Global Air Temperature to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Hi Phil, On 21 Oct 2008, at 20:30, P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote: >> Harry, > Thanks. I'll enjoy Iceland - it's cold, > and leave this nutter till next week. I'll just forward him to the Met Office's PDF on warming/cooling, it seems to answer his question. > > Cheers > Phil > > Ps Tell him we do it once a month - when the HC update it. Will do. Cheers Harry >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: "Sheppard Sylv Miss \(SCI\)" >>> Date: 21 October 2008 09:27:57 BDT >>> To: "Harris Ian Mr \(ENV\)" >>> Subject: FW: Global Air Temperature >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bruce KELLIE [mailto:bruce.kellie@telus.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:57 AM >>> To: Sheppard Sylv Miss (SCI) >>> Subject: Global Air Temperature >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> I visit NASA.ORG every night to check the Global Air Temperature >>> chart atributed to the CRU. How frequently do you update the >>> chart? When can we expect the next update? >>> >>> The earth is passing-through a 'tipping point' - from increasing >>> global temperatures to decreasing; according to a natural cycle, >>> don't you think? If carbon dioxide was that effective in creating >>> global warming, why hasn't the temperature increase of the 1990's >>> continued into this last decade? Why is it getting colder? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Bruce KELLIE P.Eng. >>> Electrical Engineer >>> ABBOTSFORD, B.C. >>> CANADA >> >> Ian "Harry" Harris >> Climatic Research Unit >> School of Environmental Sciences >> University of East Anglia >> Norwich NR4 7TJ >> United Kingdom >> >> >> > > 1970. 2008-10-22 15:00:57 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:00:57 +0100 from: "Sarah Raper" subject: Re: sea level from AR4 models to: "Tim Osborn" Dear Tim, Oh, is that all.... It is because even Malte's latest MAGICC 6.0 does not do well expansion well, that I am now looking at it with a view to getting it good (and writing a paper). I think it is doable eventually, however, and you are welcome to help if you like. It will involve analysing the 3-D ocean data. I do have Jonathan's AOGCM data, that is what I was plotting in plot I left on your desk. It is also he that you should approach for AR4 total SLR - but I am not sure that he ever did timeseries, I dimly remember it was just for a couple of future years (time snaps). All available details (clues) are in the appendix you mention. Since SLR projections are in my opinion without much foundation you could either 1) stick strictly to IPCC (low estimate no dynamics for icesheets) 2) go with Ramsdorf - larger estimate based just on surface temps 3) or update of Ramsdorf - I forget author. How come you promised such a thing? Best, S Dr Sarah Raper Senior Research Fellow Centre for Air Transport and the Environment (CATE) Manchester Metropolitan University Faculty of Science & Engineering John Dalton East Building Chester Street Manchester M1 5GD United Kingdom +44(0)161 2471596 Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University's email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer >>> Tim Osborn 20/10/2008 16:27 >>> Hi Sarah, you know I'm using global-mean temperature changes from MAGICC-AR4 emulations of the 19 AR4 GCMs to drive my pattern scaling in ClimGen? Well, we also need to information about associated sea level rise. For thermal expansion, there is also MAGICC output. But do you consider these to be too poor to use? If you think they're not good enough, then perhaps I can get hold of the data actually calculated from the AR4 GCMs for thermal expansion (global means) -- i.e. those plotted in fig. 10.31 which I've attached here. Who would I ask for those data? Jonathan Gregory? Finally, is there any data for the ice-melt component of SLR? Either from your existing model (i.e. not from post-AR4 work) or from the sensitivity & scaling relationships reported in AR4 (e.g. Appendix 10.A.2/3)? Many thanks for any suggestions! Cheers Tim P.S. Did you get my email about an exam question? Keith said you'd be delighted to help! ;-) 3851. 2008-10-23 18:09:59 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:09:59 +0200 from: Stefan Rahmstorf subject: Re: global temperatures to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Dear Phil, enviable, to be in Iceland. How are they dealing with their bankruptcy? I take it that you basically agree with the interview text. I have adapted it below, taking some of what you wrote into account. I have cut the bit about the differences between Hadley and GISS, I think that is getting too complex. The change you mentioned that happened in 1990 could not explain why the 1998-2007 trend is so different between GISS and Hadley. My trend calculations you can trust, I computed them myself from http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual In fact, I just double-checked and recalculated them. Looks like the 2007 value was updated since I last used it, it is 0.01 ºC lower than before. This is why the 9-year trend has changed from 0.22 to 0.21. The 10-year trend is unaffected. Thus the little interview now reads: KlimaLounge: The German journalist Ulli Kulke has repeatedly claimed that global warming has stopped and global temperatures "show no trend in this decade". You are one of the leading experts on global climate data. Has the global warming trend stopped, or at least slowed down? Jones: No. What happens is that some people take the trend starting in 1998, which was an extremely warm year, well above the long-term trend line. This exceptional warmth was due to an El Niño event in the Pacific ocean. If you take the trend 1998-2007 in our data, it is + 0.09 ºC per decade. But if you take the trend 1999-2007, it is + 0.21 ºC per decade. For comparison: the long-term global warming trend for the past 50 years is 0.13 ºC per decade. Thus, if you start in 1998 you get a below-average trend, if you start in 1999 you get an above-average trend. That simply is a result of natural year-to-year variability, which is always superimposed on the long-term warming trend. There is no indication for a change in the trend. You explained this very nicely in your Realclimate article earlier this year. KlimaLounge: But Kulke claims that his statements are based on you saying that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998, and that therefore we can relax our mitigation efforts. Jones: That is a serious misinterpretation of what I said. Indeed the trend since 1998 is not statistically significant - simply because of the natural variability just mentioned, the time span of 10 years is too short to reliably determine a trend. The uncertainty on a 10-year trend is +/- 0.2 ºC per decade (2-sigma). Therefore, one certainly cannot claim that the warming trend has slowed down on this basis. This is nonsense and just confuses the signal of global warming with the superimposed noise of natural variability. Such claims are scientifically simply incorrect. KlimaLounge: Thanks for this clarification. Let's hope that Kulke will stop making such false claims in future. How long a period do you need to obtain a reliable trend? Jones: If you take 20-year trends the result is getting more robust, the uncertainty here is only +/- 0.07 ºC per decade. The most recent 20-year trend, 1988-2007, is 0.20 ºC per decade. With this more robust measure, the most recent trends are the highest. Compare this for example with the trend centered ten years earlier, 1978-1997: this is only 0.11 ºC per decade. Thus, on those time scales where one can make scientifically sensible statements, the global warming trend has accelerated and certainly not slowed down. If you can live with this, I'll make a German version. Enjoy the hot springs. Cheers, Stefan -- Stefan Rahmstorf www.ozean-klima.de www.realclimate.org 4450. 2008-10-24 17:00:26 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri Oct 24 17:00:26 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Question on climate reconstructions, and a query on model to: "Richard Baldwin" see you then - cheers At 16:55 24/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, Thanks for the replies. There are elements of standardisation that I'm still not quite sure of, so post-reading and armed with questions I shall drop by one day next week when I'm in Norwich (I live in London...) to go through some of this further. Thanks again. Richard. 2008/10/24 Keith Briffa <[1]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> Hi Richard sorry for delayed response - things a bit manic here At 15:09 22/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, In further query of your comments on issues with standardising climate data, and in a way hopefully simplifying the process to myself, is the (simply expressed) issue with the divergence between current instrumental climate data and observed tree ring density that the change has been too rapid to allow a 'smoothing' of the high frequency variability to occur? No merely that the divergence is only apparent (at the NH average scale) in the smoothed i.e. lower-frequency domain. You need to smooth the tree-ring records and the temperature to see it. However, the divergence is largely an artifact of using curve fitting (i.e. based on least-squares fitted regression lines or functions ) to estimate the unwanted (biological) growth trend in the tree-ring data. These fits are influenced by climate warming signals in the recent data , and this signal is inadvertently removed in the standardising process. When non-curve fitting methods are used (such as RCS) this problem is largely removed. I attach a recent papers that goes into this - though you DO NOT NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE DETAILS OF THIS. Or is there something else lurking in there still? I must admit that having read some of the reading list papers I'm still a bit unclear on some of these points... If you wish to discuss this further after looking at the papers - come and chat And secondly - with so much of the SH being ocean, is it the case that a certain number of grid cells in GCMs will necessarily be made up of 'best estimate' parameters due to a lack of a) direct observations and b) proxy data, GCMs are based only on physical equations - no observational data or proxy data really affect the formulation of the models. OK some reworking of model parameters does in reality take place to get the model to better simulate observed conditions - but only at a gross average scale . That is why we can justifiably compare simulated model output with observations , where the models are forced with realistic estimates of the net effects of processes that produce climate changes ie volcanic activity, solar radiation changes , changes in atmospheric constituents - all of which directly or indirectly produce the radiative forcing that ultimately produces changes in regional and global climates. and if so will this have an effect on the uncertainty levels of predictions based on the model output? Or as it is all ocean can more assumptions on parameter values be made along similar uniformitarian principles as with the tree ring data? The design of models is based on our physical understanding of the climate system - true though that some components of the system are ignored or very simplified - as was interactive vegetation until very recentlty. In as much as the values ascribed to these processes may be poorly understood and may not be valid on some timescales or through time the uniformitarianism principle can be considered as applying here also - but not in the sense of regression-based interpretations of proxy data (when these are merely regressed against instrumental data with no consideration (often unavoidably) for the underlying influence of other processes that may obscure, mask or bias the apparent relationships thus established , and that are used to retrodict climate over periods when the "other" processes may not act in the same way. Thanks. Richard. 2008/10/7 Keith Briffa <<[2]mailto:k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>[3]k.briffa@uea.ac.uk> Richard happy to chat about this after tomorrow's lecture if you wish - but in the meantime ; the distinction I make in the chapter is between empirical signal on the one hand and theoretical signal on the other. This of course is a frame of reference invented for convenience. The theoretical signal in this chapter should be taken to be a measure of the representation, within the chronology or chronologies , of the specific climate variability with which we are concerned. This could be , for example the average of June,July and August temperature as measured by some instrumental record for the region. What I mean by the statement is that if I am interested in reconstructing the past variability of this specific climate variability at long time scales - i.e. how mean JJA temperature changes on time scales of a century or more, the chronologies must be processed (i.e. standardised) in such a way as the expressed empirical signal (i.e. the expression of the common variability actually contained within the trees we have sampled) is at least potentially preserved at this same long time scale. This is not to say that preserving the long time scale information will ensure a good representation of the theoretical signal as it is expressed by the chronology. Rather that, even if tree growth in an area is influenced by summer temperatures at this long time scale, if we process the measured ring-width data in such a way that the long time scale variance is removed (effectively high-pass filtering the chronology) no evidence of long time scale temperature variability can possibly be recovered from these standardised data. In fact , in some situations, it is better to sacrifice this "potential" information in the chronologies in order to ensure the reliability of the preserved (higher frequency) variance. In doing this we can often get a more reliable reconstruction , although of only the high-frequency part of the variance spectrum. This is because in some situations preserving the low-frequency involves accepting low reliability of this information in the chronology , or because the low-frequency information preserved in the trees is simply not well correlated with the low-frequency evidence of measured temperatures in the area. You will see in the later lecture that , depending on the approach we use to scale (calibrate) the tree-ring variability against the the climate series we seek to reconstruct, it can be better to throw away the low-frequency information and scale directly against only the equivelent time scale climate information. We can discuss this in more detail later. For now , hope this answers your question - we need to make this point clear because it has wide relevance in the use of various proxy interpretations. cheers Keith At 13:48 07/10/2008, you wrote: Keith, I'm reading through your Ch5. and have a query regarding the following phrase in section 5.5.2: "If the required theoretical signal involves long-timescale variability, a very conservative approach must be adopted when standarizing..." In that context, what is meant by 'theoretical signal'? Or can I removed 'theoretical' from it and simply think of it in terms of signal and noise as was discussed in the lecture? Thanks. Richard. -- 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/cr u/people/briffa/ -- Richard Baldwin 07878 37 49 64 <[6]mailto:rich.baldwin@gmail.com>[7]rich.baldwin@gmail.com -- 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/ -- Richard Baldwin 07878 37 49 64 [9]rich.baldwin@gmail.com -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [10]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 1101. 2008-10-27 11:53:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Karpechko Alexey Dr \(ENV\)" date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:53:31 -0000 from: "Dunford Simon Mr \(MAC\)" subject: RE: Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans to: "Alister Doyle" Hi Alister Copying in Phil and Alexey to see who's best placed to speak to you.... And attaching the paper (and supplementary info) in the meantime (both under same embargo.) Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 www.uea.ac.uk/comm ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Alister Doyle [mailto:Alister.Doyle@thomsonreuters.com] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 11:46 AM To: Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) Subject: RE: Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans Dear Simon, looks interesting, yes please it would be very good to have a chat with one of the researchers this week -- maybe tomorrow or wednesday? cheers Alister Alister Doyle Environment Correspondent Reuters News Thomson Reuters O +47 22 93 69 61 M +47 900 87 663 [1]alister.doyle@thomsonreuters.com thomsonreuters.com ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: s.dunford@uea.ac.uk [mailto:s.dunford@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 27. oktober 2008 10:56 To: alister.doyle@reuters.com Subject: Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans Dear Alister Details below about a UEA-led Nature paper which demonstrates for the first time that humans are responsible for warming of both polar regions. Major blow for climate sceptics presumably... Let me know if you'd like to interview one of the authors or if you'd like the full paper. Please note the embargo. Cheers, Simon Simon Dunford Press Officer University of East Anglia [2]s.dunford@uea.ac.uk +44 (0)1603 592203 Embargoed to 18:00 GMT (14:00 US Eastern Time) on Thursday October 30 2008 Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans New research by the University of East Anglia (UEA) has demonstrated for the first time that human activity is responsible for significant warming in both polar regions. The findings by a team of scientists led by UEA's Climatic Research Unit will be published online by the Nature Geoscience this week. Previous studies have observed rises in both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures over recent decades but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence due to poor observation data and large natural variability. Moreover, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that Antarctica was the only continent where human-induced temperature changes had yet to be detected. Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence. The results demonstrate that human activity has already caused significant warming, with impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level. "This is an important work indeed," said Dr Alexey Karpechko of UEA's Climatic Research Unit. "Arctic warming has previously been emphasized in several publications, although not formally attributed to human activity. However in Antarctica, such detection was so far precluded by insufficient data available. Moreover circulation changes caused by stratospheric ozone depletion opposed warming over most of Antarctica and made the detection even more difficult. "Since the ozone layer is expected to recover in the future we may expect amplifying Antarctic warming in the coming years." `Attribution of polar warming to human influence' by Nathan Gillett (UEA/Environment Canada), Phil Jones (UEA), Alexey Karpechko (UEA), Daithi Stone (University of Oxford/Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research), Peter Scott (Met Office Hadley Centre), Toru Nozawa (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan), Gabriele Hegerl (University of Edinburgh), and Michael Wehner (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California) is published by Nature Geoscience on Thursday October 30 at 6pm, UK time. Ends Notes to Editors 1. A copy of the full paper is available on request as a PDF. 2. Dr Alexey Karpechko and Prof Phil Jones of UEA's Climatic Research Unit are available for interview. 3. For further information, to arrange interviews or request the PDF, please contact Simon Dunford at the UEA Press Office on 01603 592203/[3]s.dunford@uea.ac.uk. This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters. Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\ngeo3382.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\gillett_SI2.pdf" 3192. 2008-10-27 16:42:01 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Oct 27 16:42:01 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: End of the road... to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, It seems that Climate Audit has been discussing the paper. I ad a look whilst I was in Iceland as I had nothing better to do a few times. It was cold and snowy outside, there was internet..... Seems as though they are making some poor assumptions; someone is trying to defend us, but gets rounded upon and one of the co-authors on the paper is in touch with McIntyre. As it isn't me, and I can rule out a number of the others, my list of who it might be isn't that long.... Looking forward to 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 p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1543. 2008-10-28 15:14:56 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Oct 28 15:14:56 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fw: JCLI 2695 - Quingxiang: decision regarding your manuscript to: Qingxiang, I've been through the two sets of review comments. I think both were written by Chinese people - as they certainly weren't written by native English speakers. Ren could be the second one - the first could be a Chinese living in the US or Canada. I'm not sure another journal is the way to go here. A lot of journal editors look down the reference list to decide on possible reviewers, so I think you are likely to get Ren again. The second reviewer has also gone to great lengths to find many small mistakes - in defining terms and in some of the trends. Other journals are JGR and Int. J. Climatol. Any article ought to be in a mainstream journal. IJC takes a long time in reviewing - JGR would be quicker, but there is the issue of Ren. With JGR you can say exclude some reviewers! Both reviewers make a big thing about the definition of the rural (or the less than urban) stations. One way around this is to try and develop some rural stations that would be classed as rural however this was done. What I suggest here is to homogenize some of the OWS stations - only those from the small population centres. As the OWS stations have not been homogenized, it is important that they are - but this is a big exercise, so I'm seeing if you can do some, or some in a part of China. The other point both make is that any urban effect should be gradual. This I agree with, so here you need to show more of the difference series. If there are jumps in the difference series then the cause has to be the circulation. I'm away after today for the rest of the week. I hope to have some email contact, but it won't be regularly. Cheers Phil At 01:16 27/10/2008, liqx@cma.gov.cn wrote: Dear Phil, Here I attached the reviewers' comments on the paper. Two reviewers are intended to reject the paper, but most of the comments are not right or justified. One (reviewer B) of the them may be Ren, whose comments are same as what he said to me when he read the manuscript. I want to resubmit it to another Journal, can you give some advices on that? Thank you. Best Qingxiang ¡¡¡¡ = = = = = = ÏÂĂæÊÇת·¢Óʼ₫ = = = = = = = ÔÓʼ₫·¢¼₫ÈËĂû×Ö£ºJ. Climate (Exeter) ÔÓʼ₫·¢¼₫È˵ØÖ·£º[1]jclim@exeter.ac.uk Dear Dr Quingxiang I am now in receipt of all reviews of the manuscript entitled: "Detection of Surface Air Warming in Northeast China, with emphasis on the impacts of urbanization" by Li Qingxiang, Wei Li, Peng Si, Gao Xiaorong, Wenjie Dong, Phil Jones, Jiayou Huang, and Lijuan Cao, JCLI 2695. On the basis of these reviews and my own evaluation, I regret to inform you that the manuscript is rejected for publication in the Journal of Climate. Copies of the reviews are enclosed for your information. Yours sincerely, David B. Stephenson Editor for the Journal of Climate Attached: reviews ===================================================== Professor David B. Stephenson, Editor for Journal of Climate, University of Exeter, School of Engineering, Computer Science and Mathematics, Harrison Building, Room 334, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK. Director of Exeter Climate Systems: [2]www.secam.ex.ac.uk/xcs E-mail: [3]d.b.stephenson@exeter.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0)1392 269275 Fax: +44 (0)1392 217965 ===================================================== Linda McIlwraith Editorial Assistant for J. Climate (Exeter) jclim@exeter.ac.uk = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Ö Àñ£¡ liqx [4]liqx@cma.gov.cn 2008-10-27 ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 363. 2008-10-28 16:03:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nathan Gillett , Dáithí Sto ne , Peter Stott date: Tue Oct 28 16:03:46 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Press coverage of polar detection paper to: Gabi Hegerl Gabi, This was probably my fault! I suggested you and Peter as Alexey here is quite new and hasn't been to the media course here yet - yes we do have a course for talking to the media. I am off tomorrow to Spain, and was looking forward to a nice long and late Spanish conference meal. I didn't want to chase around Barcelona trying to find a studio - see below. Not heard of this guy Rickin. Google is a waste of time. First it thinks I meant Rockin and then Ph.Rickin - so useless. It does sound as though it isn't worth doing - especially if they have to ask Bob Watson or Martin Parry to find a skeptic. The press office here said it was a US climate skeptic - as though like Texas, they are bigger and better than UK skeptics. Glad I'll be in Spain Hasta Luego Amigos Phil Simon, Thursday night is the conference dinner for the meeting I'm going to. Also getting around Barcelona and finding studios might be quite difficult. I think it would be far better to get Peter Stott from the Hadley Centre to do this. Peter is "Peter Stott" or better still Peter Stott Another option is another UK based author Gabi Hegerl ( "Gabi Hegerl" ). Cheers Phil At 15:14 28/10/2008, you wrote: Hi Phil and Alexey Just heard from BBC News 24 again and they want the interview on Thursday night to be a head-to-head with a US climate sceptic. Because English isn't Alexey's first language they are worried that this might cause problems. Not really sure why! They are wondering if they can fix something up with Phil instead from a studio in Barcelona. (Might be better because a live head-to-head with an American sceptic might be a bit daunting for Alexey on his first story!) They're looking into studios over there at the moment. What are you movements on Thursday night Phil? Will this be possible. If not, they might fix something up with the Met Office instead. Cheers, SimonAt 15:45 28/10/2008, Gabi Hegerl wrote: Hi guys, the BBC just called and tried to talk me into a debate with some sceptic (any sceptic the guy that called seems VERY clueless was thinking of calling Bob Watson or Martin Parry to get in a sceptic - I should NOT have enlightened him in retrospect,.....) about if this paper now proofs for good that humans are changing climate. this seems like a really strange tack. any recomms? heard between lines that you turned him down Peter! maybe should just do the same thing. stupid idea. dont want to debate a professional debater on air. do you know this guy, Rickin? Gabi Phil Jones wrote: Nathan et al, Although still embargoed till 6pm UK time on Thursday, Alexey and I have started doing interviews about the paper. Alexey should be talking to someone fairly soon. I talked to Nature earlier today, and we've both just talked to BBC R4 (for 6pm on Thursday) and I spoke to Sky News. I'm off to a meeting tomorrow, so Alexey will do any more that come in from now on. The UEA press office has been surprised by the take up of the story - probably people are just fed up of financial news. 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 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 151. 2008-10-28 16:13:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:13:37 -0500 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: FYI: Risks of global warming greater than financial crisis: Stern to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q19120081027 Print | Close this window Risks of global warming greater than financial crisis: Stern Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:53am EDT By James Pomfret HONG KONG (Reuters) - The risks of inaction over climate change far outweigh the turmoil of the global financial crisis, a leading climate change expert said on Monday, while calling for new fiscal spending tailored to low carbon growth. "The risk consequences of ignoring climate change will be very much bigger than the consequences of ignoring risks in the financial system," said Nicholas Stern, a former British Treasury economist, who released a seminal report in 2006 that said inaction on emissions blamed for global warming could cause economic pain equal to the Great Depression. "That's a very important lesson, tackle risk early," Stern told a climate and carbon conference in Hong Kong. As countries around the world move from deploying monetary and financial stabilization measures, to boosting fiscal spending to mend real economies, Stern said the opportunity was there to bring about a new, greener, carbon-reducing world order. "The lesson that we can draw out from this recession, is that you can boost demand in the best way possible by focusing on low carbon growth in future," Stern said, including greater public spending on mass public transport, energy and green technologies. Stern's warning comes on the heels of last week's Asia-Europe or ASEM meeting in Beijing, where China indicated in talks it was committed to seeking a climate change pact in vital end-game talks in Copenhagen at the end of next year. Leaders at the summit also urged countries not to use global economic upheaval as a reason for delaying a deal. Partly as a result of the darkening global economic outlook, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi recently warned that 10 other EU nations backed his efforts to block an EU climate plan, prompting further doubts over European action on global warming. Yet Stern remained optimistic, saying while talks would be "very tense" the likelihood of a deal in Copenhagen to reduce carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2050 remained "very high." Any deal would have to iron out differences between the United States, historically the largest greenhouse gas emitter, and rapidly developing countries like China, which by some accounts has surpassed the United States on emissions. China, with its bulging output of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas behind global warming, was singled out by Stern along with the U.S. as pivotal in the talks, with the next U.S. president likely to be much more proactive than George W. Bush. "The U.S. and China will be the key leaders for a global deal. Either one of them could kill it, and I don't think either one of them will kill it." Fresh from a trip to China, Stern said China's next national economic blueprint or five-year plan would acknowledge its key role to stave off a big rise in global temperatures, the melting of ice-caps and destructive rises in sea levels the world over. "I think we'll see the 12th five-year plan focus on low carbon growth," he said. (Editing by Jeremy Laurence) © Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world. Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests. 3183. 2008-10-29 16:18:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:18:40 +0000 from: Gabi Hegerl subject: Re: Press coverage of polar detection paper to: Phil Jones Hi Phil, I managed to back myself into a debate after all and am agonizing over it. Pat Michaels wants to go after the historical context ie a ice free arctic not being unusual. should I just fall ill? do you know about ice free arctic in paleoclimatic context? do we have arctic proxies? Gabi Phil Jones wrote: > >> Nathan et al, > Although still embargoed till 6pm UK time on Thursday, Alexey > and I > have started doing interviews about the paper. Alexey should be talking > to someone fairly soon. I talked to Nature earlier today, and we've both > just talked to BBC R4 (for 6pm on Thursday) and I spoke to Sky News. > I'm off to a meeting tomorrow, so Alexey will do any more that come in > from now on. The UEA press office has been surprised by the take up > of the story - probably people are just fed up of financial news. > > 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 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 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 5056. 2008-10-30 20:14:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:14:41 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Typo in equation 12 Santer.]] to: "'Philip D. Jones'" Dear Phil, I thought you'd be interested in my reply to Gavin (see forwarded email). Cheers, 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) 422-3840 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; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700 Received: from nspiron-1.llnl.gov (nspiron-1.llnl.gov [128.115.41.81]) by mail-2.llnl.gov (8.13.1/8.12.3/LLNL evision: 1.7 $) with ESMTP id m9V3Arh7024023; Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700 X-Attachments: None X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5300,2777,5419"; a="30418306" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,519,1220252400"; d="scan'208";a="30418306" Received: from dione.llnl.gov (HELO [128.115.57.29]) ([128.115.57.29]) by nspiron-1.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700 Message-ID: <490A773D.20807@llnl.gov> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:10:53 -0700 From: Ben Santer Reply-To: santer1@llnl.gov Organization: LLNL User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070529) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gavin Schmidt CC: Karl Taylor Subject: Re: [Fwd: Typo in equation 12 Santer.] References: <1224543811.19301.2452.camel@isotope.giss.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <1224543811.19301.2452.camel@isotope.giss.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Gavin, There is no typo in equation 12. The first term under the square root in equation 12 is a standard estimate of the variance of a sample mean (see, e.g., "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research", Zwiers and Storch, their equation 5.24, page 86). The second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1* test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled sample variances). In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain, but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a demonstrably false assumption. Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the estimate of the model average trend in equation 12. It is NOT appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between two uncertain quantities (see our comments in our point #3, immediately before equation 12). The uncertainty in the estimates of both modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the design of any statistical test comparing modeled and observed trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed trends. Our Figure 6A is not a statistical test. It does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete pressure levels (which would have made for a very messy Figure, given that we show results from 7 different observational datasets). Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors in Figure 6A, I suspect that standard errors from the RICH, IUK, RAOBCORE-v1.3, and RAOBCORE 1.4 datasets would have overlapped with the multi-model average trend at most pressure levels. I can easily produce such a Figure if necessary. With best regards, Ben Gavin Schmidt wrote: > Ben, Just thought I'd check with you first. I don't think there is a > problem - but I think the question is really alluding to is our comment > about Douglass et al 'being wrong' in using sigma_SE - since if we use > it in the denominator in the d1* test, it can't be wrong, see? > > My response would be that we are testing a number of different things > here: d1* tests whether the ensemble mean is consistent with the obs > (given their uncertainty). Whereas our figure 6 and the error bars shown > there are testing whether the real world obs are consistent with a > distribution defined from the model ensemble members. > > gavin > > -----Forwarded Message----- > >> From: lucia liljegren >> To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov >> Subject: Typo in equation 12 Santer. >> Date: 20 Oct 2008 15:46:51 -0500 >> >> Hi Gavin, >> >> Someone commenting at ClimateAudit is suggesting that equation 12 >> contains a typo. They are under the impression the 1/nm does not >> belong in the circled term. Rather than going back and forth with "is >> not a typo", "is so a typo", I figured I'd just ask you. Is there a >> typo in equaltion 12 below. >> >> ---- >> > >> >> >> >> BTW: I think Santer is pretty good paper. >> >> Thanks, Lucia >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2689. 2008-10-30 21:06:31 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" , Gavin Schmidt , "Thorne, Peter" , Tom Wigley date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:06:31 -0700 from: Ben Santer subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper to: "Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)" Dear Gavin, Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the questions that you posed. The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch, Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1* test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled sample variances). In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain, but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a demonstrably false assumption. Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed trends. I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation (12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend." We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting "imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2). To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation (12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20 smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1* with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat. In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational datasets. We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out, the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT) is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH, IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed in Figure 6. Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of email contact) for the past 10 days. With best regards, Ben Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote: > > > Dear Prof. Santer, > > I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper > "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical > trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models > 1/n_m s{}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{}^2. Firstly > the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at > the start of the first column of page 8. Secondly, I can't see how the > modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic > is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m. Thirdly, > the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in > Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at > higher levels (400-850 hPa) using the confidence interval based on the > standard error. Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid > treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt. > > I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have > found most instructive! > > I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if > this is the case. > > best regards > > Gavin > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5301. 2008-10-31 00:48:23 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP)" , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Gavin Schmidt , "Thorne, Peter" , Tom Wigley date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:48:23 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper to: santer1@llnl.gov SEE CAPS Ben Santer wrote: > Dear Gavin, > > Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent > paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no > error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the > questions that you posed. > > The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard > estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical > Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch, > Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The > second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an > estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1* > test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in > means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled > sample variances). > > In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model > average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to > use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their > statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain, > but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is > not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a > demonstrably false assumption. > > Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a > sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the > estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT > appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between > two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both > modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the > design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed > trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed > trends. > > I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no > inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) > and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation > (12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure > of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite > sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding > whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend." > > We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting > "imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". WE COULD ADD THIS, BUT BE CAREFUL. THE **SAMPLE** TREND **IS** PERFECTLY KNOWN. AFTER ALL, THIS IS A WELL-DEFINED NUMBER. WHAT IS UNCERTAIN IS THE POPULATION TREND THAT IT IS AN ESTIMATE OF. I thought, however, that > the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made > very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2). > > To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in > Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation > (12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on > N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20 > smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of > the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1* > with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the > square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat. > > In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the > components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A > does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete > pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors > at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy > Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational > datasets. > I HOPE THIS IS CLEAR IN THE TEXT OR CAPTION. > We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure > level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy > paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the > synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven > radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such > tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out, > the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT) > is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed > signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH, > IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the > formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed > in Figure 6. > > Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the > delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of > email contact) for the past 10 days. > > With best regards, > > Ben > > Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote: >> >> >> Dear Prof. Santer, >> >> I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your >> paper "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the >> tropical trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of >> the models 1/n_m s{}^2 instead of the standard deviation >> s{}^2. Firstly the current formulation of (12) seems at odds >> with objection 3 raised at the start of the first column of page 8. >> Secondly, I can't see how the modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in >> Figure 5B as the test statistic is explicitly dependent on the size of >> the model ensemble n_m. Thirdly, the equation seems at odds with the >> results depicted graphically in Figure 6 which would suggest the >> models are clearly inconsistent at higher levels (400-850 hPa) using >> the confidence interval based on the standard error. Lastly, (12) >> seems at odds with the very lucid treatment at RealClimate written by >> Dr Schmidt. BEN -- DID YOU RESPOND TO THIS? BY THE WAY, I NOTE THAT GAVIN SCHMIDT IS NOT A STATISTICIAN. >> >> I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I >> have found most instructive! VERY PLEASING COMMENT !!!! >> >> I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if >> this is the case. >> >> best regards >> >> Gavin >> > > 6. 2008-11-01 18:50:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:50:12 -0600 from: Tom Wigley subject: [Fwd: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper] to: Ben Santer , Phil Jones Hi Ben & Phil, No need to push this further, and you probably realize this anyhow, but the RealClimate criticism of Doug et al. is simply wrong. Ho hum. Tom. Subject: RE: Possible error in recent IJC paper Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:01:46 -0000 From: "Cawley Gavin Dr \(CMP\)" To: Cc: "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" , "Gavin Schmidt" , "Thorne, Peter" , "Tom Wigley" Dear Ben, many thanks for the full response to my query. I think my confusion arose from the discussion on RealClimate (which prompted our earlier communication on this topic), which clearly suggested that the observed trend should be expected to lie within the spread of the models, rather than neccessarily being close to the mean as the models are stochastic simulations (which seemed reasonable). I've just re-read that post, the key paragraph from [1]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ is as follows: "The interpretation of this is a little unclear (what exactly does the sigma refer to?), but the most likely interpretation, and the one borne out by looking at their Table IIa, is that sigma is calculated as the standard deviation of the model trends. In that case, the formula given defines the uncertainty on the estimate of the mean - i.e. how well we know what the average trend really is. But it only takes a moment to realise why that is irrelevant. Imagine there were 1000's of simulations drawn from the same distribution, then our estimate of the mean trend would get sharper and sharper as N increased. However, the chances that any one realisation would be within those error bars, would become smaller and smaller. Instead, the key standard deviation is simply sigma itself. That defines the likelihood that one realisation (i.e. the real world) is conceivably drawn from the distribution defined by the models." I had therefore expected the test to use the standard deviations of both the models and the observations (which would give a flat plot in 5B and there would be an obvious overlap of the uncertainties in 6a at say 500hPa). best regards Gavin -----Original Message----- From: Ben Santer [[2]mailto:santer1@llnl.gov] Sent: Fri 10/31/2008 4:06 AM To: Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) Cc: Jones Philip Prof (ENV); Gavin Schmidt; Thorne, Peter; Tom Wigley Subject: Re: Possible error in recent IJC paper Dear Gavin, Thanks very much for your email, and for your interest in our recent paper in the International Journal of Climatology (IJoC). There is no error in equation (12) in our IJoC paper. Let me try to answer the questions that you posed. The first term under the square root in our equation (12) is a standard estimate of the variance of a sample mean - see, e.g., "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research", by Francis Zwiers and Hans von Storch, Cambridge University Press, 1999 (their equation 5.24, page 86). The second term under the square root sign is a very different beast - an estimate of the variance of the observed trend. As we point out, our d1* test is very similar to a standard Student's t-test of differences in means (which involves, in its denominator, the square root of two pooled sample variances). In testing the statistical significance of differences between the model average trend and a single observed trend, Douglass et al. were wrong to use sigma_SE as the sole measure of trend uncertainty in their statistical test. Their test assumes that the model trend is uncertain, but that the observed trend is perfectly-known. The observed trend is not a "mean" quantity; it is NOT perfectly-known. Douglass et al. made a demonstrably false assumption. Bottom line: sigma_SE is a standard estimate of the uncertainty in a sample mean - which is why we use it to characterize uncertainty in the estimate of the model average trend in equation (12). It is NOT appropriate to use sigma_SE as the basis for a statistical test between two uncertain quantities. The uncertainty in the estimates of both modeled AND observed trend needs to be explicitly incorporated in the design of any statistical test seeking to compare modeled and observed trends. Douglass et al. incorrectly ignored uncertainties in observed trends. I hope this answers your first question, and explains why there is no inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the comments that we made in point #3 [immediately before equation (12)]. As we note in point #3, "While sigma_SE is an appropriate measure of how well the multi-model mean trend can be estimated from a finite sample of model results, it is not an appropriate measure for deciding whether this trend is consistent with a single observed trend." We could perhaps have made point #3 a little clearer by inserting "imperfectly-known" before "observed trend". I thought, however, that the uncertainty in the estimate of the observed trend was already made very clear in our point #1 (on page 7, bottom of column 2). To answer your second question, d1* gives a reasonably flat line in Figure 5B because the first term under the square root sign in equation (12) (the variance of the model average trend, which has a dependence on N, the number of models used in the test) is roughly a factor of 20 smaller than the second term under the square root sign (the variance of the observed trend, which has no dependence on N). The behaviour of d1* with synthetic data is therefore dominated by the second term under the square root sign - which is why the black lines in Figure 5B are flat. In answer to your third question, our Figure 6A provides only one of the components from the denominator of our d1* test (sigma_SE). Figure 6A does not show the standard errors in the observed trends at discrete pressure levels. Had we attempted to show the observed standard errors at individual pressure levels, we would have produced a very messy Figure, since Figure 6A shows results from 7 different observational datasets. We could of course have performed our d1* test at each discrete pressure level. This would have added another bulky Table to an already lengthy paper. We judged that it was sufficient to perform our d1* test with the synthetic MSU T2 and T2LT temperature trends calculated from the seven radiosonde datasets and the climate model data. The results of such tests are reported in the final paragraph of Section 7. As we point out, the d1* test "indicates that the model-average signal trend (for T2LT) is not significantly different (at the 5% level) from the observed signal trends in three of the more recent radiosonde products (RICH, IUK, and RAOBCORE v1.4)." So there is no inconsistency between the formulation of our d1* test in equation (12) and the results displayed in Figure 6. Thanks again for your interest in our paper, and my apologies for the delay in replying to your email - I have been on travel (and out of email contact) for the past 10 days. With best regards, Ben Cawley Gavin Dr (CMP) wrote: > > > Dear Prof. Santer, > > I think there may be a minor problem with equation (12) in your paper > "Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical > trophosphere", namely that it includes the standard error of the models > 1/n_m s{}^2 instead of the standard deviation s{}^2. Firstly > the current formulation of (12) seems at odds with objection 3 raised at > the start of the first column of page 8. Secondly, I can't see how the > modified test d_1^* gives a flat line in Figure 5B as the test statistic > is explicitly dependent on the size of the model ensemble n_m. Thirdly, > the equation seems at odds with the results depicted graphically in > Figure 6 which would suggest the models are clearly inconsistent at > higher levels (400-850 hPa) using the confidence interval based on the > standard error. Lastly, (12) seems at odds with the very lucid > treatment at RealClimate written by Dr Schmidt. > > I congratulate all 17 authors for an excellent contribution that I have > found most instructive! > > I do hope I haven't missed something - sorry to have bothered you if > this is the case. > > best regards > > Gavin > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 366. 2008-11-02 01:50:09 ______________________________________________________ date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 01:50:09 -0400 (EDT) from: g.mcgregor@auckland.ac.nz subject: JOC-08-0099 - Invitation to Review to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk 02-Nov-2008 TIM: COULD YOU HELP OUT WITH A QUICK REVIEW OF THIS. I HAVE PASTED BELOW THE COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER REVIEWER FYI Dear Dr Osborn Manuscript # JOC-08-0099 entitled "1963: The break point of the Northern Hemisphere temperature trend during the twentieth century" by Ivanov, Martin; Evtimov, Stilian 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 3 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=Q2CScyY6sCfdBhJSX62J 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, Prof. Glenn McGregor International Journal of Climatology MANUSCRIPT DETAILS TITLE: 1963: The break point of the Northern Hemisphere temperature trend during the twentieth century AUTHORS: Ivanov, Martin; Evtimov, Stilian ABSTRACT: Climate changes gradually and abruptly. The Northern Hemisphere temperature series bears the fingerprint of these changes. Using rigorous statistical tools we show that during the twentieth century this series is well described by a stationary noise process around a one-time broken linear trend. We detect 1963 as the year of the break and identify it with the time of an abrupt climate shift. We offer a scenario for the latter. The concurrence of the major rhythms of internal climate variability and the Mount Agung eruption give rise to a critical fluctuation. The climate system cannot bear this fluctuation without consequences and abruptly moves to a new state. In the new regime the rate of temperature growth almost triples. ===================== OTHER REVIEWER'S COMMENTS Review of E963: The break point of the Northern Hemisphere temperature trend during the twentieth centuryEby Martin Ivanov and Stilian Evtimov (manuscript #JOC-08-0099). The authors analyze global temperatures since 1890 until the present and its linear trend. They argue there was one break in the trend caused by a climate shift around 1963-1964 caused by the eruption of Mt. Agung and the simultaneous reversal in polarity of three major teleconnection indices:, the NAO, the PNA and the SOI. I applaud the authorsEefforts to employ statistical techniques not commonly used in meteorology to analyze meteorological time series. The authors use a test derived from economics to identify any breaks or abrupt shifts in the global temperature time series. The validity of the entire manuscript rests on the robustness of this test to accurately identify an irreversible break in the trend line. Unfortunately I have to admit that I am neither familiar with the technique nor am I qualified to judge the merit of the results, still here are some of my concerns. The time series contains many large and abrupt temperature swings that at least by eye are as large as the 1963-1964 temperature shift including the early 1900’s, and all of the decades from the 1940’s through the 1970’s. The authors do mention the better-known 1970’s climate shift but I feel that the authors could do more to prove the singularity of the 1963 climate shift in the twentieth century. If indeed their technique contradicts the idea of the 1970’s climate shift this is important and the authors need to spend more time explaining and justifying this result. The authors are stingy with tables and figures. I really could not appreciate the information provided in Table 1, the authors need to break up Table 1 into multiple tables and provide more information to make the data useful to the reader. I would also suggest including more figures. One additional figure could be the times series of the land and ocean temperatures separately with the same trend analysis as with the combined global temperature time series of Figure 1. Also, since the authors are suggesting a change in polarity of the NAO, PNA and ENSO indices to explain the break in the trend of the global temperature time series, it would be useful to regress all of the teleconnection time series with the temperature time series and then try to reconstruct the observed temperature time series. This way the authors can also quantify how much of the observed cooling in 1963 can be attributed to the individual teleconnection indices rather than just hand waving. Better yet would be to use a GCM and sample the model for periods where the teleconenction indices match the polarity changes observed in 1963 and measure the temperature change in the model. I don’t expect the authors to do this but maybe they can devise some Monte Carlo simulations as a poor man’s GCM using the observed time series to test their hypothesis. Finally I strongly feel that the authors should remove the last paragraph of the Discussion section. Extrapolating from their results to human climate control is a huge leap and I feel that it is not justified nor useful to the manuscript. 2796. 2008-11-02 11:19:11 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk, c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 11:19:11 -0000 (GMT) from: C.Harpham@uea.ac.uk subject: Re: Adjusting the WG to MOHC/UKCIP08 Tmean and Range to: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk Phil, I have gathered together all the plots done so far for London (attached). There is an added bonus in doing this that needs to be emphasised - the heat island effect, the UKMO data takes land use into consideration and from the adjusted WG runs (which are virtually the same as UKMO) the heat island effect has been captured (to some extent anyway). For areas such as the Sheffield grid the changes are fairly small for all but the urban areas and then <1.0 deg. London's are only > 1.0 for the city. The WG Vas sent me takes just over a minute a run, lets say 1.5mins which for 8000 cells equates to roughly 8 days continuous cpu time. I could do 1000 cells at a time and then calculate the stats (which takes longer than a WG run). So, approx a month perhaps. Problems. The WG does not run reliably all the time, it occasionally loses server connection and stops, a pain for overnight runs. When running the WG I am unable to do anything else, it seems to hog all resources even with a dual processor. Could temporarily get another PC though. Chris, need to resolve above before launching into this - it was not a problem for the smaller runs. If I were to do the calcs in the same order as the batch runs I could start feeding cfs (by the 1000 say) as we go along. Phil, will check mail tonight if you have any queries. cheers Colin > Colin, > Here is a doc that came from Chris whilst I was away. > I thought you were on it, but you're not. Anyway here > it is. Also attaching my ppt that I've just made up > for Monday's meeting with DEFRA in London. > > What I'm going to tell them s that we will have > to do the adjustements for all boxes - a la what you've > done for SCORCHIO. > > Need to do for Tmean and also for Range. Can you make > an estimate on Monday how long this will take? We will > need to get these adjustments to Chris before he runs > any of his batch runs. There is still some time, as > he doesn't yet have the final CFs due to the temperature > variance issue. > > I've convinced myself looking at these that doing the > adjustments improves all these ten locations. I know > why the spatial interpolation does this, so not difficult to > explain. > > Cheers > Phil > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\London_various_plots.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Manc_Shef_various_plots.doc" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\lond_cfs_Tmean.csv" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\manc_cfs_Tmean.csv" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\shef_cfs_Tmean.csv" 2420. 2008-11-04 09:38:22 ______________________________________________________ cc: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk date: Tue Nov 4 09:38:22 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: My minutes from yesterday to: C G Kilsby Chris, Colin, Kathryn had someone taking minutes yesterday - so you'll be getting the official ones in a day or two. Below is what the WG has to do, plus a few more observations - some things that won't be in the minutes but were odd. I will try and find out more when in Exeter Thursday and Friday. First on the mean T and range. Colin is going to liaise with Vaz about producing the offsets from what the WG currently produces for T and R compared to what it probably ought to do compared to NCIC. NCIC is the MOHC gridded monthly UK climatologies - the updated data that was in UKCIP02. The effect of doing this will get the averages for the UK sites to be the same as NCIC for the means. Colin's not sure how long this will take, but we need to do it. It should also improve the extreme counts. The problem relates to us using only 115 stations to fit the WG and then spatially interpolating these to get all 5 by 5km squares. Stations that are frost hollows like Yeovilton will get improved, and also stations like LHR and Ringway which are slightly warmer than neighbouring stations will also. Geoff didn't understand why we need to do this, but he finally cam around. Colin has done this for Manchester, Sheffield and London in Scorchio, and can send you a series of plots if interested. The final, final set of Change Factors will be sent by Dave to Ag by Dec 1. Ag will then run his scripts on these and get stuff to you about 5-7 days later. When you get these, we need to check the daily T variance to see of there are still silly numbers. Dave apparently says they will be OK (he wasn't there, but Geoff says he's sorted this. He may have done this by setting the changes to 1 - we will have to wait and see). Essentially they are now happy with what they had done before - they understand why things are happening. They are supposed to have corrected daily T var and also Pdry. So check these first when they arrive! So things won't be that different in the revised set. So in the meantime, you should continue your porting work to the Newcastle cluster. Colin will produce the WG/NCIC offsets for Tmean and Range. The PMG were impressed with the extremes when I explained what you could and couldn't compare. We discussed what extremes we should show as maps and what we could show as numbers - like the Tables you sent down. The maximum number as maps should be 4, 2 for T and 2 for rainfall. I'll leave rainfall up to you but Rmed and the dry spells above 10 days seem likely candidates. For T we should do frost days (even though this isn't that extreme) and one high T value. Finally they seem to understand that absolute thresholds aren't that good. We can drop a heatwave measure. We talked about going back to doing the 90th percentile if Tx. We can discuss this more during November. I'd also like to continue to do the Annual highest Tx, as this is one we can directly compare with one Dave has done - and show this if it agrees well. This should keep Lenny quiet! BADC said they could plot the results - using the same colour bars they are using for the. I guess you'll want to plot the maps anyway. Roger wanted us to plot the deltas (future minus control) which I think is a good idea. Geoff wanted us to plot future as absolute. Again we need to think about this. My thoughts are to plot control 50% and the delta (there will be three of these for 10/50/90. We can do many more extremes for the 8 sites you've done so far. This would give people things that they could reproduce, as they won't be able to reproduce the maps. Again we can discuss this more. We could expand on what you currently have or limit it to these. In any plots of the 8 sites - don't join up series. Just plot the symbols against the 8 sites. Some people tried to interpolate between the locations !!!!!! I said we could also add the 10/90th percentiles from the Obs. We do this by making the 10th &ile the 3rd value when ranked and the 90th %ile the 27th (approximately). Doing this will ensure the WG control is within the obs range. Some other things 1. We are expected to go to the review meeting on Jan 13/14 in Reading. We might be asked to make a presentation and/or answer questions. Geoff sees this as being very useful and getting the responses done fairly quickly. Kathryn has been asked to try reduce the time between that meeting and the launch. The review period is Nov 28 - Dec 16. After Dec 16, we will get the comments back, and be expected to respond to as many of the easy ones before Jan 13/14. 2. The HC have told James Murphy and Dave Sexton not to talk to Roger till after Dec 1. He is a bit fed up with this - he can't understand some of their comments. Anna is sending around the worked examples and we've all got too much else on to have time to look at these. Only Geoff and Kathryn are responding, which isn't ideal. I've not got time and I guess you haven't either. 3. UKCIP is staying in DEFRA. Almost all other climate work is moving to DECC. DECC is apparently trying to set up something which seems quite similar to UKCIP, so UKCIP are quite worried. Not sure what is going on - so this is where I hope to find out more in Exeter talking to Bob Watson and/or Chris Sear. 4. We need to liaise with Ag on the TD and the User Guidance. I'll email Ag later to get a copy of this. Kathryn told me where it is on a password protected site, but I can't find that password anywhere. For the TD, this will be to ensure that it reproduces what will be in the extreme tables. On the User Guidance it is ensure that the text about how to use the model variants is still there. I still think that those at the PMG don't understand that this guidance (from our Newcastle meeting in 2007!) is important. Geoff says why isn't it in our WG Report? 5. I reiterated that PET will be MORECS. Explained again why we can't do MOSES. 6. We need to tell Roger who will be manning our helpdesks for the launch. We need to do this fairly soon. UKCIP want to have someone visit all the first points of contact. UKCIP will farm these out, but try and respond to as many as possible with their 120 FAQs. Yes they have this many. The HC haven't been through and signed off on many of theirs - another bone of contention for UKCIP. 7. Finally Geoff and Roger want some examples of the output from the WG. Maybe Colin can send some daily and hourly stuff for LHR. Doesn't need to be much - a few months or days. Geoff says why don't we plot an example of the output! I said this would be silly as it is just weather data. 8. Kathryn has been surprised that none of us (HC, BADC, UKCIP, Newc, UEA) have asked for more money given the delay. Apparently we can. We may not get it, but if we can think of a good reason we might. Need to get something in soon and a revised contract by March. DEFRA is expecting to take a big hit in the next spending review, so we are very unlikely to get anything after March 2009. We can extend the contract end date, but need to inform them of this. In Exeter the rest of the week - here today if you want to call. Apologies if this is a but disjointed, but based on my notes. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4532. 2008-11-04 09:45:45 ______________________________________________________ cc: tom crowley , "Rosanne D'Arrigo" date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:45:45 +0000 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Re: data request re: Gordon Jacoby to: Michael Purdy Michael Purdy wrote: > Dr Crowley - > > To the best of my knowledge, the data that you are requesting were > deposited in the NOAA data bank in August 2008. > > Mike Purdy > Dear Mike, thank you very much for your response. but I think Gordon is not being entirely frank with you. The data from individual trees were in fact deposited. But what people really want to know is what the lead author of such a project considers the best guess composite of the individual trees - none extend the entire length of the time series, and they must be spliced together, after making some not-so-simple corrections for the growth rate effect of the trees and the relative importance of "site effects" for different trees (only the person doing the field work really understands that). Gordon published his best estimate of the composite time series -- the one that is most valuable to other climate scientists (who, being less familiar with site idiosyncracies, might not make the right choice in producing their own composite). The analogy in geophysics might be when someone requests a composite seismic synthesis published on a particular site, and all you release is the individual seismic lines and effectively say - "go to it". Gordon has repeatedly refused to release this composite to other scientists - EXCEPT to fellow Lamont scientist Ed Cook. If Ed feels more comfortable with Gordon's composite than one he could produce on his won, surely other scientists even more removed from the procedures must feel the same way. It is therefore frustrating not only to the field that Gordon won't release his reconstruction to them, it is doubly frustrating because he has been inconsistent on this matter in giving it to Ed. I wrote a separate letter to Rosanne D'Arrigo on this matter yesterday, saying that I was at the end of my patience on this matter (it has been going on almost TEN YEARS!), and that I am going to write the Director of NSF on the matter. Gordon has still not met his obligations to the field and I intend to write that letter unless he releases it immediately. I am sorry it has come to this stage. I am not mad at you or Rosanne (she has been caught in the middle on this fracus). But the community deserves that composite and I feel the matter has come to the point where either Gordon releases the data or I go to the Director of NSF, with cc's to the head of Ocean and Atmsopheric Sciences, and head of Directorate. I apologize in advance for the action, because it seems very determined, but in fact it is really due to one very obstinate person - Gordon - and after ten years my patience is now at an end. Sincerely, Tom Crowley -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1591. 2008-11-04 10:17:31 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Nov 4 10:17:31 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Polar study to: edaddis1@yahoo.co.uk Ed, I suggest you read the IPCC AR4 report about Detection/Attribution and Understanding [1]http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html This website and download Ch 9. On saturation read Ch 2. Better to read what IPCC have said, rather than what numerous people think they have said on blog sites. The rest of the chapters are worth reading as well. They take a while to download. Ch 8 is on climate modelling, Ch 6 on paleo and Ch 3 on instrumental obs. Attached a copy of the paper. This is how all detection and attribution studies are done. Cheers Phil At 19:01 01/11/2008, you wrote: Hello Phil I read about your work on the BBC website yesterday but, speaking as a physicist myself, I remain unconvinced. You have arrived at your conclusions by comparing the results of computer modelling with observations, which at least is better science than has been reported so far during the evolution of the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon. However, you must be well aware that the same outcome could arise from the inaccuracy and over-simplification of the models. For the AGW hypothesis to be taken seriously, there would have to be answers to two key points: 1 The near saturation of the radiative absorption bands of CO2 make it impossible for the addition of more CO2 to lead to significant warming. 2 The historical climate records show unequivocally that changes in CO2 do not cause warming - the reverse appears more likely. Nobody I've ever contacted about this, including climate scientists have ever been able to give satisfactory answers to these, and so far none has been able to hold out a shred of evidence that rising CO2 levels are currently a cause of warming. This includes all the rainforests of output of the IPCC. Regards Ed Addis Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 861. 2008-11-04 13:09:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:09:48 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: last chance to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk,t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Keith, Tim, These two emails came Tuesday. I seem to be a blind cc on them. I've not sent them on to Ed, but you can if you want. I did tell Ed when I saw him in Greece, that Tom Crowley had started this. I am wondering what has got Tom going like this. Tom used to work for 3 years at NSF, so has lots of contacts there. I wonder if Tom has tried to reproduce the chronology from the cores that have been lodged. I would reckon that Gordon/Rosanne would only lodge the cores they have used. It is what we'd do - or what we should do, if we were mindful to lodge any series. Cheers Phil >Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:42:59 +0000 >From: Thomas Crowley >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) >To: "Rosanne D'Arrigo" >Subject: last chance >X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk > with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.16.102 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 >X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 12016249 - 97068ba2e0ea (trained as not-spam) >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12016249&m=97068ba2e0ea&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12016249&m=97068ba2e0ea&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12016249&m=97068ba2e0ea&c=s > >Dear Rosanne, > >you may know by now that I appealed to the Director of Lamont to >pressure Gordon to release the Mongolia time series composited >record back to ~900 > >He indicated that it might take some time to look into this matter. > >for other reasons I would like very much to include this time >series in a paper we are now writing, and since I have not heard >from the Director of Lamont, >I am going to the NSF Director with my complaint. > >I hate to put you in the middle of this - I like you and admire your >work and don't want you caught in any crossfire. > >but I feel that the community has been exceedingly patient and >cordial on this matter and that I am doing this only as a last recourse. > >I am willing to wait only until this Thursday (November 6) before I >send my message to the NSF Director. I hope very much one final >appeal will do it and obviate the need for any public dispute on this matter. > >Please Rosanne, you have to make Gordon realize that it is not just >him vs the world - you have rights too. > >With sincere regards, Tom > >ps don't forget -- because the data were already released to Ed >Cook (who has honored his promise to Gordon not to release it), >Gordon and you are on even more precarious grounds with respect to >justifying the withholding of the data from the rest of the community > >-- >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:45:45 +0000 From: Thomas Crowley User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) To: Michael Purdy CC: tom crowley , "Rosanne D'Arrigo" Subject: Re: data request re: Gordon Jacoby X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at treacle.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.16.102 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 12057177 - e06c805665dc (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12057177&m=e06c805665dc&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12057177&m=e06c805665dc&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12057177&m=e06c805665dc&c=s Michael Purdy wrote: >Dr Crowley - > >To the best of my knowledge, the data that you are requesting were >deposited in the NOAA data bank in August 2008. > >Mike Purdy Dear Mike, thank you very much for your response. but I think Gordon is not being entirely frank with you. The data from individual trees were in fact deposited. But what people really want to know is what the lead author of such a project considers the best guess composite of the individual trees - none extend the entire length of the time series, and they must be spliced together, after making some not-so-simple corrections for the growth rate effect of the trees and the relative importance of "site effects" for different trees (only the person doing the field work really understands that). Gordon published his best estimate of the composite time series -- the one that is most valuable to other climate scientists (who, being less familiar with site idiosyncracies, might not make the right choice in producing their own composite). The analogy in geophysics might be when someone requests a composite seismic synthesis published on a particular site, and all you release is the individual seismic lines and effectively say - "go to it". Gordon has repeatedly refused to release this composite to other scientists - EXCEPT to fellow Lamont scientist Ed Cook. If Ed feels more comfortable with Gordon's composite than one he could produce on his won, surely other scientists even more removed from the procedures must feel the same way. It is therefore frustrating not only to the field that Gordon won't release his reconstruction to them, it is doubly frustrating because he has been inconsistent on this matter in giving it to Ed. I wrote a separate letter to Rosanne D'Arrigo on this matter yesterday, saying that I was at the end of my patience on this matter (it has been going on almost TEN YEARS!), and that I am going to write the Director of NSF on the matter. Gordon has still not met his obligations to the field and I intend to write that letter unless he releases it immediately. I am sorry it has come to this stage. I am not mad at you or Rosanne (she has been caught in the middle on this fracus). But the community deserves that composite and I feel the matter has come to the point where either Gordon releases the data or I go to the Director of NSF, with cc's to the head of Ocean and Atmsopheric Sciences, and head of Directorate. I apologize in advance for the action, because it seems very determined, but in fact it is really due to one very obstinate person - Gordon - and after ten years my patience is now at an end. Sincerely, Tom Crowley -- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3032. 2008-11-06 12:21:23 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 12:21:23 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Fwd: last chance to: Phil Jones ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk At 13:09 04/11/2008, Phil Jones wrote: > Keith, Tim, > These two emails came Tuesday. I seem to be a blind cc on them. > I've not sent them on to Ed, but you can if you want. > I did tell Ed when I saw him in Greece, that Tom Crowley had started > this. I am wondering what has got Tom going like this. > Tom used to work for 3 years at NSF, so has lots of contacts there. > > I wonder if Tom has tried to reproduce the chronology from the cores > that have been lodged. Would he know how? His email implies that he doesn't have the expertise to do that. Hence his need for a ready-computed chronology. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, since I'd have thought Gordon Jacoby would be more reluctant to release the individual cores than the chronology, yet the former are apparently at ITRDB and the latter is not... maybe there's some reluctance to make the chronology available because of the way Tom has approached this or due to some other personality issue? >I would reckon that Gordon/Rosanne would only > lodge the cores they have used. It is what we'd do - or what we should do, > if we were mindful to lodge any series. > > Cheers > Phil 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 3504. 2008-11-06 14:19:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:19:27 +0000 from: Maria Noguer subject: QUEST-GSI Stakeholders meeting - 20 November to: Nigel Arnell , "'Tim Wheeler'" , r.j.nicholls@soton.ac.uk, t.p.dawson@soton.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk, e.d.g.fraser@leeds.ac.uk, r.taylor@geog.ucl.ac.uk, Sari.Kovats@lshtm.ac.uk, rjh@ceh.ac.uk, graham.pilling@cefas.co.uk, richard.betts@metoffice.gov.uk, Maria Noguer , Kathy Maskell , jo.house@bris.ac.uk, sarah.cornell@bristol.ac.uk, "Gottschalk, Pia" , "Brown S." Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id mA6EJS6V022390 Dear QUEST-GSI partners, Many thanks for your responses regarding your availability for the stakeholder meeting. Attached the list of responses so far from stakeholders and partners. *Proposed format of the stakeholders meeting:* The invitation that I sent to the stakeholders is at the end of this email. In there I wrote that they would get an introduction to the project from Nigel and then some preliminary results from partners. After that we would open it to a discussion where we would expect feedback from the stakeholders on appropriate outputs and means of communicating results to them. It would be great if we could have 5 minutes presentations from each partner/subject showing your preliminary results. Including only those that have replied so far we would have something like this: Nigel - overview of project and global water resources Southampton - flooding Reading (Nigel or Gillian) - crops UCL - Catchment-scale impacts Aberdeen - Soil carbon fluxes LSHTM - Human health Let me know your thoughts. Maria ------------------------------------------- *Assessing the impacts of climate change and informing climate policy – mitigation and adaptation * On Thursday 20 November 2008 > From 2.00 – 4.00 at Church House Conference Centre, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, London How much do we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid “dangerous” impacts? To answer this question we need quantitative information about climate change impacts. We would like to invite you to discuss the first results from the QUEST – Global Scale Impacts project. We have, for the first time, quantified the impacts of climate change in a consistent way across the entire globe and across various sectors such as water resources, flooding, crops and ecosystems using a variety of metrics. Your input as a user of this information will shape the final outcome of our projects. We are very keen to learn more about your requirements and to incorporate those in our final results. So please come and join us for an afternoon of climate impacts, policy solutions and adaptations options. Professor Nigel Arnell, QUEST-GSI co-ordinator, will give a project overview and other members of the project will present preliminary results addressing the following questions: * What are the global-scale impacts for different levels of global temperature change? * How are the impacts in different sectors interrelated? * Where are the “hot spots”? * How much will climate change mitigation and adaptation policies reduce “damages”? What you will get out of this session: * Information about the impacts of climate change to inform policy setting of targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction. * Better quantification of impacts to inform national and global adaptation and planning strategies. Please let me know if you will be joining us on the 20th of November. If you cannot join us on the day, please extend this invitation to a member of your team. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing from you, Maria Noguer PS: QUEST-GSI is one the projects under QUEST, a multidisciplinary programme of the Natural Environment Research Council aiming to answer questions on the global environment. -- Dr Maria Noguer, Climate Research and Business Manager Walker Institute (http://www.walker-institute.ac.uk/) Tel: +44 (0)118 3787380 Fax: +44 (0)118 3788316 Email: m.noguer@reading.ac.uk Walker Institute, University of Reading Agriculture Building, Earley Gate Reading RG6 6AR, United Kingdom -- Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Quest-GSI Stakeholder meeting invitees(DOC)1.doc" 5106. 2008-11-10 13:01:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: tom crowley date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:01:14 +0000 from: Thomas Crowley subject: [Fwd: Re: ps] to: "Rosanne D'Arrigo" Rosanne, I want this business to end just like you - but there is one very puzzling element of this business that leads me to ask further questions: "if this information was available on the web", why didn't you just say so? "why didn't Gordon just say so"? after getting a runaround for years, the community deserves to hear the answer to this. there is also the business of the Tar Pass (Solongotyn Davaa) extension to 262, and composites for Bairam Uul, Khalzan Khamar, and Khentii Uul - can you give me the status of these? Tom -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Return-Path: Received: from murder (lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.149.64]) by mailbe1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:21:58 +0000 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Received: from lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:21:58 +0000 Received: from renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.3]) by lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id mA5JLvPr004529 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:21:57 GMT Received: from lamont.ldeo.columbia.edu (smtp.ldeo.columbia.edu [129.236.10.30]) by renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mA5JLp8t009786 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:21:56 GMT Received: from [129.236.110.198] (dhcp-110-198.ldgo.columbia.edu [129.236.110.198]) (user=mpurdy mech=PLAIN bits=0) by lamont.ldeo.columbia.edu (8.13.2/8.13.2/LDEO-1.45) with ESMTP id mA5JLmDP027239 for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:21:48 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20081104160757.3ooh12gl2ookgsgc@www.staffmail.ed.ac.uk> References: <49106501.8090203@ed.ac.uk> <20081104160757.3ooh12gl2ookgsgc@www.staffmail.ed.ac.uk> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:21:44 -0500 To: Thomas Crowley From: Michael Purdy Subject: Re: ps Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.13.3 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: hits=0 tests= version=2.64+local X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk with MIMEDefang 2.52, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus Content-Disposition: inline >Tom - I believe that the composite data that you are looking for are at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/chronologies/asia/mong003r.crn Let me know if that is not the case. This is in the Solongotyn Davaa (Tarvagatay Pass) folder that you can get to via http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleo/ftpsearch.treering And search on Country: Mongolia and Investigator: Jacoby. Mike Purdy >Quoting Michael Purdy : > > >Mike, > >understood - wish I was in the States today - it must be very exciting! > >thanks, Tom > >>>Tom - We are closed today for the election - I will look into this >>>some more tomorow and get back to you as soon as I can. Mike >> >> >> >> >>>Mike, >>> >>>I did not mean to imply that I would send anything to NSF (and >>>probably NOAA) until Lamont has a last chance to shake the >>>reconstruction out of Gordon. >>> >>>I just meant to say the letter will go off in a few days unless I >>>hear otherwise. >>> >>>and again, believe me, I do not want to get Lamont in trouble - I >>>have many fond memories of working with Lamont scientists and >>>overall the institution has been exemplary in sharing - it is just >>>that sometimes you wind up with difficult situations that you >>>haven't planned for, and this is certainly one of them..... >>> >>>Tom >>> >>>-- >>>The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >> >> >>-- >> >> >>******************************************** >> >>G. M. Purdy >>Director >>Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University >>Palisades NY 10964 >> >>Phone: 845 365 8348 Fax: 845 365 8162 >> >> >>******************************************** > > > >-- >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- ******************************************** G. M. Purdy Director Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Palisades NY 10964 Phone: 845 365 8348 Fax: 845 365 8162 ******************************************** 2283. 2008-11-10 16:00:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:00:41 +0000 from: Phil Jones subject: [Fwd: Re: ps] to: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk Keith, Maybe pass this to Tom. Phil >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:01:14 +0000 >From: Thomas Crowley >User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) >To: "Rosanne D'Arrigo" >CC: tom crowley >Subject: [Fwd: Re: ps] >X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at nougat.ucs.ed.ac.uk > with MIMEDefang 2.60, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus >X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.60 on 129.215.13.205 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 >X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) >X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0) >X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) >X-Canit-Stats-ID: 12380367 - 3b894420aeed (trained as not-spam) >X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12380367&m=3b894420aeed&c=f >X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12380367&m=3b894420aeed&c=n >X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12380367&m=3b894420aeed&c=s > >Rosanne, > >I want this business to end just like you - but there is one very >puzzling element of this business that leads me to ask further questions: > >"if this information was available on the web", why didn't you just say so? > >"why didn't Gordon just say so"? > >after getting a runaround for years, the community deserves to hear >the answer to this. > >there is also the business of the Tar Pass (Solongotyn Davaa) >extension to 262, and composites for Bairam Uul, Khalzan Khamar, >and Khentii Uul - can you give me the status of these? > >Tom > >-- >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > > >Return-Path: >Received: from murder (lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.149.64]) > by mailbe1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; > Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:21:58 +0000 >X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 >Received: from lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (Cyrus v2.2.12) with LMTPA; > Wed, 05 Nov 2008 19:21:58 +0000 >Received: from renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk [129.215.13.3]) > by lmtp1.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id mA5JLvPr004529 > for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:21:57 GMT >Received: from lamont.ldeo.columbia.edu (smtp.ldeo.columbia.edu >[129.236.10.30]) > by renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.4) with ESMTP id mA5JLp8t009786 > for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:21:56 GMT >Received: from [129.236.110.198] (dhcp-110-198.ldgo.columbia.edu >[129.236.110.198]) > (user=mpurdy mech=PLAIN bits=0) > by lamont.ldeo.columbia.edu (8.13.2/8.13.2/LDEO-1.45) with > ESMTP id mA5JLmDP027239 > for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:21:48 -0500 (EST) >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Message-Id: >In-Reply-To: <20081104160757.3ooh12gl2ookgsgc@www.staffmail.ed.ac.uk> >References: <49106501.8090203@ed.ac.uk> > <20081104160757.3ooh12gl2ookgsgc@www.staffmail.ed.ac.uk> >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:21:44 -0500 >To: Thomas Crowley >From: Michael Purdy >Subject: Re: ps >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.149.64 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.52 on 129.215.13.3 >X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 129.236.10.30 >X-Spam-Score: 0 >X-Spam-Level: >X-Spam-Status: hits=0 tests= version=2.64+local >X-Edinburgh-Scanned: at renko.ucs.ed.ac.uk > with MIMEDefang 2.52, Sophie, Sophos Anti-Virus, Clam AntiVirus >Content-Disposition: inline > >>Tom - I believe that the composite data that you are looking for are at: > > >ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/chronologies/asia/mong003r.crn > >Let me know if that is not the case. > >This is in the Solongotyn Davaa (Tarvagatay Pass) folder that you >can get to via > >http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleo/ftpsearch.treering > >And search on Country: Mongolia and Investigator: Jacoby. > > >Mike Purdy > > > >>Quoting Michael Purdy : >> >> >>Mike, >> >>understood - wish I was in the States today - it must be very exciting! >> >>thanks, Tom >> >>>>Tom - We are closed today for the election - I will look into this >>>>some more tomorow and get back to you as soon as I can. Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Mike, >>>> >>>>I did not mean to imply that I would send anything to NSF (and >>>>probably NOAA) until Lamont has a last chance to shake the >>>>reconstruction out of Gordon. >>>> >>>>I just meant to say the letter will go off in a few days unless I >>>>hear otherwise. >>>> >>>>and again, believe me, I do not want to get Lamont in trouble - I >>>>have many fond memories of working with Lamont scientists and >>>>overall the institution has been exemplary in sharing - it is just >>>>that sometimes you wind up with difficult situations that you >>>>haven't planned for, and this is certainly one of them..... >>>> >>>>Tom >>>> >>>>-- >>>>The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>>>Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>> >>>******************************************** >>> >>>G. M. Purdy >>>Director >>>Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University >>>Palisades NY 10964 >>> >>>Phone: 845 365 8348 Fax: 845 365 8162 >>> >>> >>>******************************************** >> >> >> >>-- >>The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > >-- > > >******************************************** > >G. M. Purdy >Director >Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University >Palisades NY 10964 > >Phone: 845 365 8348 Fax: 845 365 8162 > > >******************************************** > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5235. 2008-11-10 16:42:12 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:42:12 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: Tim Osborn thanks Tim I think we should tell Dave that in this case we are very busy and need time to look at questions and consider - then say we will provide answer later - what do you think? Keith At 16:27 10/11/2008, you wrote: >Keith and Phil, > >I've had 2 minutes to look at this. Initial responses are below. I >haven't cc'd this to Dave Palmer, in case you want to think about it further. > >Tim > >> >>---------- >>From: Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >>Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:40 PM >>To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >>Subject: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 >> >>Dear Mr Palmer, >> >>This is to note that much of the information requested in FOI >>request (FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01) has been posted at >>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/datapages/mxdtrw.htm >>. I've now had an opportunity to examine this data and request the >>following clarification to the information that you provided. >> >>1) Many Schweingruber series ( see listing at >>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering-wsl-data.htm) >>within one of the gridboxes listed at the webpage ("Rutherford >>gridbox") (about 109) are excluded from the 341 sites sent to >>Rutherford - an example is the series athapcen. What was the basis >>for excluding this and the other excluded series? Please provide >>any manuals, computer code or correspondence explaining the exclusion. > >The website already provides this information, he should read it >more carefully. > >> 2) A few (3) series are included in the Rutherford roster even >> though they are not within the 4 corners of a Rutherford gridbox >> (irempisy kuba4lag kuba2lag ). What was the basis for including >> these series? Please provide any manuals, computer code, >> documents or correspondence explaining the inclusion. > >I don't understand the question. > >> 3) I examined Gridbox 7(132.5E 72.5N) in more detail. It contains >> one series: omoloyla. The gridded series (#7) has values from >> 1400-1991, but the underlying omoloyla chronology at ITRDB only >> goes from 1496 to 1991 and the underlying measurement data for >> omoloyla at ITRDB only has values for the period >> 1496-1991. Please provide any manuals, computer code, >> documents or correspondence explaining how the values from >> 1400-1495 were obtained. If a different omoloyla data set was >> used for this study than the data set at ITRDB, would you please >> advise and provide the data actually used in this study. If there >> are similar discrepancies for other sites, would you please >> provide a listing of sites for which the version used differs from >> the ITRDB version. > >I generated estimates of data in some boxes by a multiple regression >model using surrounding gridded MXD data, if it were possible to >extend some shorter grid-box records in this way. We cannot just >give this short answer, since he will then just ask for the >details. I should, therefore, attempt to find the details if we >reply to this question. > >> 4). A few series have incorrect codes (adybogla balyebla >> leshpcob vanc) compared to the Shweingruber codes. Does this >> affect the operation of any computer programs? > >No > >> >>5) Not all series listed at the Osborn webpage are in the ITRDB >>data set. Some examples are: >> >> id name type long lat start end >>327 gartogfi Gartog PCBA 98.52 29.67 1709 1993 >>328 haizefi Haize Shan PCBA 99.50 30.30 1777 1993 >>329 lhamafi Lhamcoka PCBA 99.12 31.82 1784 1994 >>330 lhambfi Lhamcoka PCBA 99.13 31.80 1669 1994 >>331 lhamcfi Lhamcoka PCBA 99.10 31.82 1768 1994 >>332 lhamdfi Lhamcoka PCBA 99.10 31.82 1630 1994 >>333 qamdofi Qamdo PCBA 96.95 31.08 1406 1994 >>334 riwofi1 Riwoqe PCBA 96.48 31.23 1709 1994 >>335 riwofi2 Riwoqe PCBA 96.48 31.30 1673 1994 >>Can you please provide this data. > >I think all the Schweingruber chronologies are on the SO&P website >anyway; originally this was password-protected, but that protection >was probably removed after the end of the SO&P project, so we could >just direct him there. > >> 6) The Tornetrask id tornxx does not match the corresponding >> Schweingruber ids, where there are 3 ids for this site. Can you >> please provide the data set with id tornxx as used in the gridding study. > >I think that this too will be on the SO&P website, as part of the >file containing the MXD chronologies. But I'm not 100% sure and >have no time to look to find this out. > >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 > -- 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/ 1037. 2008-11-10 19:39:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:39:41 -0000 from: "Lenton Timothy Prof \(ENV\)" subject: [Env.faculty] Leverhulme 'Tipping Points' call to: Dear fellow ENV faculty, The Leverhulme Trust have issued an invitation to apply for a research programme grant (£0.5-1.75M) on the topic of 'tipping points' which they interpret broadly (key text is reproduced below). http://www.leverhulme.ac.uk/grants_awards/grants/research_programmes/ I would like UEA to put something in, perhaps along the lines of 'Encouraging tipping points in human systems to avoid tipping points in the Earth system' and this email is to see if anyone else in ENV wants to join in? Others in UEA are keen to apply and Susan Malone in RBS (susan.malone@uea.ac.uk) has offered to help in trying to get together a meeting of interested parties. If you would like to be involved please join the 'doodle' poll for a meeting date: http://www.doodle.com/qumipn4ht76yk578 Or let me know your interest/suggestions (but please do not reply to the env.faculty list). Thanks, Tim ~~~ 1. Tipping Points As with the term paradigm shift , the concept of tipping point has entered popular debate to the point where its precision has been lost. If rigorously applied, however, its value remains significant. Research is required therefore to restore its value either by exploration of compelling examples or by analysis of its logical basis. In the social, economic, cultural or physical realms, what are the factors that independently or jointly spur certain beliefs, ideas, actions or outcomes to be suddenly adopted or intensified? If taken up by large groups of a population, these can generate large, unforeseen, mass movements. If acting on a physical system, they can induce rapid and irreversible change. What then are the critical factors that determine the natural history (birth, spread, duration, decay) of such phenomena? Understanding can come from highlighting and characterising historical examples and their modern parallels, including the influence and impact of the different communication channels. Models from biology may be reflected or testable in observed human behaviour. Similarly, for the physical world, the dynamics of change and the consequence for change of contributing factors can be systematically examined. The objective is to explore through research the tipping point concept, to test its validity in different situations and in this way to contribute towards a general model of understanding. _______________________________________________ Env.faculty mailing list Env.faculty@uea.ac.uk http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.faculty 1322. 2008-11-11 13:59:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Stephan Bojinski" , "Lefebvre Christiana" , Rösner Stefan , "Schneider Udo" date: Tue Nov 11 13:59:28 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: AW: WG: GSN and CLIMAT from DMI Greenland to: "Fuchs Tobias" , "Richard Thigpen" , Tobias, I wasn't thinking of the donor fund. I was thinking of some NMSs considering that some stations are not good candidates for GSN or GUAN just because funding isn't secure for that long. This is the perennial issue of many important observations and dataset development coming out of research budgets. I suspect that when Stephan and others at GCOS look through the national GCOS reports they will see this as a recurring theme. Cheers Phil At 13:38 11/11/2008, Fuchs Tobias wrote: Dear Phil, i will check with Asheville their database inventory concerning Greenland. Based on the answer i will contact our GCOS focal point in Denmark. Concerning Summit station and GSN stations with no ensured long term operation we might discuss (Dick will be able to help), if something could be done based on the GCOS Donor Fund or based on other financial sources (e.g. concerning Europe we might discuss this issue with EUMETNET EUCOS). Regards, Tobias ___________________________________________________________________________________ Von: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Gesendet: Mo 10.11.2008 11:04 An: Fuchs Tobias; Richard Thigpen; thigpenr@erols.com Cc: Stephan Bojinski; Lefebvre Christiana; Rösner Stefan; Schneider Udo Betreff: Re: WG: GSN and CLIMAT from DMI Greenland Tobias, Thanks for the update from DMI about Greenland. The automation issues are being faced by many other countries, but it seems that DMI is on top of the issues. It would be useful to check in a few months that all the long records from Greenland are available at the archive centre in Asheville. As for the Summit site, we perhaps want to talk about this at the next AOPC. I helped in putting together the UK report to GCOS. The lack of any long-term guarantee on site operation didn't stop the UK naming some sites in the GSN and GUAN, so perhaps we should tell DMI that their concerns about this are not as serious as they think. Cheers Phil At 08:33 05/11/2008, Fuchs Tobias wrote: >Dear Phil and Dick, > >i was tasked during the last AGG meeting to >contact DMI Denmark in order to explore >possibilities for inclusion of 04416 (Summit AWS) in the GSN. > >It took some time for DMI to investigate the case and make up their mind. >Below please find the answer from our GCOS focal point in Denmark. > >04416 will continue as long as possible as additional research station, >but they can not guarantee long term operation >of this station (for details see Item 1 below). >Thus they have major concerns to include this station in GSN. > >But DMI has also good news for the coming year: >- all research stations in Greenland are planned >to be made available throught GTS >- they will improve their processing and QC >system concerning CLIMAT (Item 2 was related to >GSNMC results showing data quality problems regarding >CLIMAT from Greenland) > >Best Regards, >Tobias > >Tobias Fuchs >Deutscher Wetterdienst >Business Area Climate and Environment Department KU4 (Hydrometeorology) >Head of Division KU42 (Precipitation Monitoring) and of the >Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) > >Postbox 10 04 65 >D-63004 Offenbach am Main > >Tel.: +49 - 69 - 8062 2872 >Fax: +49 - 69 - 8062 3987 >email: tobias.fuchs@dwd.de; gpcc@dwd.de >Internet: [2]http://gpcc.dwd.de; [3]http://www.gsnmc.dwd.de >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: ckh@dmi.dk [[4]mailto:ckh@dmi.dk] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. November 2008 17:55 >An: Fuchs Tobias >Betreff: GSN and CLIMAT from DMI Greenland > >Dear Tobias >Your are on my list of "to do's" - here during >my stay at WMO/CHy XIII in Geneva" > >I have two issues I should answer you: > >GSN - Summit > >and > >the missing content of some 2009 CLIMATs > >Excuse me for answering in this little informal >way on both in one mail (but I am away from my >office and on my webmail) - if you need formal >letters/answers please let me know (an I will >make them when back in Copenhagen after CHy.(next week). > >Item 1 > >GSN-Summit. >This has been considered very carefully in our >department as we of course recognize the >international interest in having it included in >the GSNetwork The situation is that DMI >established this station as a temporary station >years ago in connection with the ice-core >drillings conducted by a temporary Research programme (Ice core drilling). > >The station was intended to support the Ice core >studies, and was put up as the logistics were >present (regular flights to the location) in the >years with heavy activity in the Summit drilling >camp As the years have gone by - luckily it has >been possible to maintain the station and >service it regularly to the benefit for >everybody interested in data from the >Greenlandic Icecap However - the service of the >station depends entirely on the occasional >opportunity of charter flights from the coast to >Summit - flights operated by research parties. >DMI have - at the moment - no >technical/logistical options to ensure/guarantee >regular service and maintenance of this station >This means that it will only be in operation as >long as somebody else operates and finance such transports. >In the coming year we will see two developments in Greenland: >- we expect to see many more stations on >GTS - as we work on getting the data >from all research stations - temporary as more >permanent - in real time data and make them available through GTS. >- We are in the beginning of our own >technical modernization of DMIs automatic >weather stations along the coast of Greenland >(the locations prioritized by meteorologists and NWP-modellers). >So - now to the conclusion: >Our rationale is to say that stations we suggest >as GSN stations should be stations we our self >believe we can "keep alive" and ensure long timeseries from. >In the case of Summit that is not the case at the moment >- we can not ensure that it will operate >to morrow, nor that we can visit it for >service next year or every year, so we consider >it an additional station (we are happy for as >long as it works - like any other research >station) I hope that you - from my long and >detailed explanation can understand our concerns >about putting it on the GSN list. > >Item 2 > >CLIMAT/missing data from Nuuk, as well as desire >to extend the CLIMAT with more information/more groups. > >Thank you for notifying me on this deficit/lack of information. >I have been looking into this matter and - here I have a more positive answer: > >You may be aware that DMI reorganized its >departments in 2006/7 At the same time some of >our core people on these matters retired This >combined with the fact that we in these years >are implementing brand new Stat-Obs and Clima >databases and QC - means that there are a few >areas where we have to get up to date - the Climat is one of these areas. > >Right now the Climat is made up monthly in a >more manual and traditional way based on the >data available in our old databases - >- the unfortunate reason for the missing >data have been that we due to some >technical problems have only partially >timeseries in the database from the missing >months of Nuuk data however based on your >notification and our focus on this matter we are >sending technicians to Nuuk who in this/next >week will repair the station as well as retrieve >the missing data from the datalogger on site. >This -. Combined with our plans for shifting the >CLIMAT from partly manually production/our old >databases to our new databases and high QC >system in 2009 means that I expect that we: >a) will be able to make the missing CLIMATE >reports from Nuuk and reissue them >b) we during 2009 will address the question >on extending the CLIMAT as described >in your mail >c) we during 2009 will shift to a QC system >that may assure that we will find >and correct such errors > >I hope this will be satisfactory for you and I >will get back to you later this year when we >have the result from the data-rescue operation in Nuuk > >Once again thank you for notifying us. > >Kind regard >(from a long first day at the Commission of >Hydrology XIII....) //Claus (Kern-Hansen) > >Citat Fuchs Tobias : > > > Dear Mr. Kern-Hansen, > > > > do you have an answer concerning potential inclusion of station 04416 > > "Summit AWS" in the GCOS Surface Network (GSN)? > > > > Best Regards, > > Tobias Fuchs Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3672. 2008-11-11 16:44:51 ______________________________________________________ cc: Popa Ionel , Phil Jones , Keith Briffa , Simon Tett , Gabi Hegerl , "Gerald R. North" , Claudia Timmreck , Stephan Lorenz , Sandy Tudhope , "raymond s. bradley" date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:51 +0000 from: Thomas Crowley subject: Medieval9 to: Bo Vinther Hi Bo, just to whet your appetite of our new product, here is an updated reconstruction of 30-90N temperatures (land) for 994-2007 (I wanted to focus on annual data to validate new volcano simulations being run by some modelling groups...) this simulation incorporates several features not previously included new data from Alberta (Canada) - (Luckman extended record) Alaska (D'Arrigo-Wilson) Carpathian region (Popa, CD this year) Mongolia (some of the finally released Jacoby data) Alps (Jan Espers work) the method combines long reconstructions from nearby sites of Yamal and Polar Urals in order not to overweight one region I only use sites that have records extending continuously from 994-1960 - calibrated with instrumental data over interval 1880-1960 (r=0.64, error = 0.25 C) the nine sites have very nice spacing - White Mtns (Nevada), Alberta, Alaska, Scandinavia, Alps (SudTirol), Carpathians (region we never had before - big hole), West Siberia, East Siberia (Taimyr), and Mongolia would be nice to have an annualized time series from China, but so far cannot track one down used 30-90N (land) because that is where the best paleo data - that is where we can best validate volcano simulations, and, in general, most people still live on land - somemore more useful metric than global temp. note approximate 2.5 C range in temperature from depth of Little Ice Age to present (also have extended instrumental series to 2007 - thank you Phil) - pretty big zero line represents Phil's calibration interval for instrumental data (Phil - 1930-1960?) note only ONE year rises above Phil's zero reference level -- AD 1031 - beginning about 1920 values consistently rise above that, therefore supporting Gabi's interpretation of detectable global warming signal by mid-20th century sending this out to others for any comments/questions - when we get the annualized Greenland O18 we will be done, unless someone knows of a reliable annual time series from China (one published last week in Science was unfortunately biannual) with regards, Tom ps 1258 cooling only about 0.5C, supporting conclusions from work I am doing with the Hamburg group that large flux at that time was associated with increased particle size, which led to increased absorption of longwave radiation and damping of cooling signal (which should have been 10X Pinatubo) -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 4938. 2008-11-12 12:13:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:13:55 +0000 (GMT) from: David Lister subject: Re: Fwd: FW: London UHI to: Phil Jones Phil, Colin has supplird the Wisley data and I can do some more analyses for the proposed paper. I know that we had a brief word about what we should do a few weeks ago. I thought that I had made a note but I cannot find anything. From memory, I was going to include Wisley in the annual/seasonal trend calculation/comparison exercise to complemeent Colin'd graphics. Just a couple of points/questions: Rob has tended to concentrate more on the nocturnal UHI effect and we looked at Tmean. Are we going to stick with the Tmean approach? When we did the China paper, we did not include Kew in the annual Tmean plots. Perhaps we felt that Kew was a little less reliable/homogeneous so we left it out. The Heathrow smoothed curve rose above the one for Kew in our original plot (which included Kew) ca. 1976. At first sight, Heathrow was being affected by increasing urbanization. However, I suppose that Kew may have a 'problem'. Colin has included Kew in his new plots (he has not got Gatwick, which we used, but it does end several years ago and perhaps has not much of a place in the current work). Can we have a word about this - sometime soon? Cheers David On Thu, 25 Sep 2008, Phil Jones wrote: > Colin, David, > It might be worth us writing a brief paper to Weather, extending the > London > analyses in the China paper. I think that most of the plots are done, so > when you're back Colin, can you dig out those Rothamsted comparisons > for max and min that you did some months back. What I might ask you > to do David is some more of those histogram diagrams between > station pairs? > What I think Rob might be seeing is trends at Wisley, not at SJP. > > Cheers > Phil > >> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived >> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived >> From: R.L.Wilby@lboro.ac.uk >> Subject: Fwd: FW: London UHI >> To: , >> X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.2.6 >> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:28:17 +0100 >> X-Scan-Signature: 9da98698eb38c16036323967e6009275 >> X-Lboro-Filtered: weed.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:28:19 +0100 >> X-Spam-Score: undef - message too big (size: 684170, limit: 153600) >> X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) >> X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available >> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 >> >> Hi Phil >> >> Thanks for the paper - this will make a nice 'recommended reading' for one >> of my first tutorial groups at Lufbra methinks. >> >> Taking a quick glance through, probably the TWO most important differences >> between your analysis and mine is that I refer mainly to the nocturnal >> (Tmin) UHI which is much more pronounced than daytime (Tmax) - see Tables >> 1 and 2 in the attached PDF of the 2003 Weather paper. Second, I use >> Wisley as the rural reference station. >> >> Looking at changing differences in *mean* daily temperatures between these >> urban-rural sites will tend to weaken the UHI - especially when you see >> that Tmax trends are roughly the same at both sites (Table 2). So my >> results are not inconsistent with yours - we're just looking at different >> things! >> >> Hope this make sense. >> >> Cheers, Rob >> >> -- >> Professor R.L.Wilby >> Department of Geography >> Loughborough University >> Leics LE11 3TU, UK >> Tel. 01509 223093 >> Mob. 07909 901059 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- the forwarded message follows --- >> >> >> >> Return-Path: >> X-Lboro-Archived: Archived >> Received: from bill.lut.ac.uk ([158.125.1.193] verified) >> by ping.lboro.ac.uk (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.6) >> with ESMTP id 11703011 for gyrlw3@staff-mail.lut.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 >> 17:06:55 +0100 >> Received: from mutable.lancs.ac.uk ([148.88.17.19]) >> by bill.lut.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.66) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1KiWtC-0004Eh-Np >> for r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:55 +0100 >> Received: from exchange-fe3.lancs.ac.uk ([148.88.1.50] >> helo=exchange-fe3.lancs.local) >> by mutable.lancs.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.68) >> (envelope-from ) >> id 1KiWtA-0005ww-Cg >> for r.l.wilby@lboro.ac.uk; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:53 +0100 >> Received: from exchange-be4.lancs.local ([148.88.5.59]) by >> exchange-fe3.lancs.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); >> Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:53 +0100 >> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 >> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; >> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C91E5F.8ECC2B68" >> Subject: FW: London UHI >> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:38 +0100 >> Message-ID: >> <57F37666BA6C794882BAEFE59E1EFFD58B9ECA@exchange-be4.lancs.local> >> X-MS-Has-Attach: yes >> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: >> Thread-Topic: London UHI >> Thread-Index: AckeXE21fXjypmkOQ02IfQxXTO3brQAAziHy >> References: >> >> >> From: "Wilby, Robert" >> To: >> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Sep 2008 16:06:53.0066 (UTC) >> FILETIME=[8F3D5EA0:01C91E5F] >> X-Scan-Signature: a954b39f57c18a27ddaa8ab8a548c2ee >> X-Lboro-Filtered: bill.lut.ac.uk, Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:06:55 +0100 >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >> Sent: Wed 24/09/2008 16:43 >> To: Jenkins, Geoff >> Cc: Wilby, Robert >> Subject: Re: London UHI >> >> >> >> Rob, >> Can you send what you sent Geoff - see his email? >> >> We're probably defining UHI differently, so here is the paper that I >> sent Geoff. >> London's UHI by the definition I'm using isn't getting any worse. >> I'm using mean temperature - see Figure 1 in the paper. >> >> What this means to me is that I could use the LWC in the global >> temperature >> calculations (i.e. using monthly anomalies from 1961-90). These would >> be no different from Rothamsted or LHR/LGW. >> >> I have similar plots for max and min comparing LWC/LHR with Rothamsted >> and with Kew >> back to 1900. >> >> Histograms like Figure 2 show no difference between the decades since >> 1974. >> >> Cheers >> Phil >> >> >> At 15:37 24/09/2008, Jenkins, Geoff wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Phil >> Thanks for the comments on the Briefing report. You say "There is >> no evidence with London of any change in the amount of the UHI over the >> last 40 years. The UHI is clear, but it's not getting any worse" and sent >> a paper to show this. By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob >> which says "London's UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s >> esp during spring and summer". Its not something I need to sort out for >> UKCIP08, but I thought you both might like to be aware of each others >> findings. I didn't keep a copy of Rob's PDF after I printed it off but I >> am sure you can swap papers. I don't need to be copied in to any >> discussion. >> >> Cheers >> Geoff >> >> Prof. Phil Jones >> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1551. 2008-11-13 09:14:45 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:14:45 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Medieval9 to: Thomas Crowley Tom fair enough - thanks for keeping us informed . I hope to publish a more extensive review paper on our Eurasian work , detailing the high and low frequency variance represented in different regions and the effects on reconstruction amplitude , specifically attributed to standardisation method on the one hand and calibration procedures on the other. with best wishes Keith At 16:42 12/11/2008, you wrote: >Keith > >its really an fyi, with the hope that any unknown long annual time >series might be identified in the group mailing - don't think so.... > >our approach is pretty much the same as before except geographic >coverage is included and we are focusing on the annual component now >- partly to validate the MPI 1258 simulation. > >we keep the number of sites constant through the whole record, >normalize each record for the same interval, weight the composite >according to its correlation with 30-90N land, and then scale over >the instrumental interval 1880-1960. > >its pretty close to what you see is what you get - very transparent >except for the weighting. its interesting in the sense that I have >been finally able to get ahold of one of the Mongolian time series, >plus the new Carpathian time series that recently came out in CD, >and including Jan Esper's SudTirol reconstructionf, also one from >Alaska, and Brian Luckman's extension of his Alberta record. > >Bo Vinter is also summing up the seasonal O18 data for NGRIP, GRIP, >AND DYE3 to give a more robust estimate of the annual O18 variations >in Greenland - I am waiting for that time series to come in. > >of course we will compare your record, as some of the records are >the same - it won't be earth-shaking but it will be an incremental >increase, and I do want to look at Asia-alone vs the Western >Hemisphere/N Atlantic sector - might be able to see some differences >in response there. > >that's all for now - just wanted to inform colleagues because >a number - including you - have helped me a lot over the years.... > >best wishes, Tom > > >>Hi Tom >>thanks - I wondered what level of specific interaction you envisage >>from us on this stuff - and what was the planned collaboration with >>Bo specifically. Of course to assess the level of "difference" with >>other work it would help to know what processing of original series >>was involved and precise scaling target and method. I for one would >>be happy to keep up with you on ongoing work. The year 1031 rings a >>big bell with me - pretty sure came out as warmest in an earlier >>Russian paper I published - will check >> >>cheers >>Keith >> >>At 10:07 12/11/2008, you wrote: >>>ok ok, this type I will send the attachment, sorry! tom >>>> >>>>Hi Bo, >>>> >>>>just to whet your appetite of our new product, here is an updated >>>>reconstruction of 30-90N temperatures (land) for 994-2007 >>>> >>>>(I wanted to focus on annual data to validate new volcano >>>>simulations being run by some modelling groups...) >>>> >>>>this simulation incorporates several features not previously included >>>> >>>>new data from >>>> >>>>Alberta (Canada) - (Luckman extended record) >>>>Alaska (D'Arrigo-Wilson) >>>>Carpathian region (Popa, CD this year) >>>>Mongolia (some of the finally released Jacoby data) >>>>Alps (Jan Espers work) >>>> >>>>the method combines long reconstructions from nearby sites of >>>>Yamal and Polar Urals in order not to overweight one region >>>> >>>>I only use sites that have records extending continuously from >>>>994-1960 - calibrated with instrumental data over interval >>>>1880-1960 (r=0.64, error = 0.25 C) >>>> >>>>the nine sites have very nice spacing - White Mtns (Nevada), >>>>Alberta, Alaska, Scandinavia, Alps (SudTirol), Carpathians >>>>(region we never had before - big hole), West Siberia, East >>>>Siberia (Taimyr), and Mongolia >>>> >>>>would be nice to have an annualized time series from China, but >>>>so far cannot track one down >>>> >>>>used 30-90N (land) because that is where the best paleo data - >>>>that is where we can best validate volcano simulations, and, in >>>>general, most people still live on land - somemore more useful >>>>metric than global temp. >>>> >>>>note approximate 2.5 C range in temperature from depth of Little >>>>Ice Age to present (also have extended instrumental series to >>>>2007 - thank you Phil) - pretty big >>>> >>>>zero line represents Phil's calibration interval for instrumental >>>>data (Phil - 1930-1960?) >>>> >>>>note only ONE year rises above Phil's zero reference level -- AD >>>>1031 - beginning about 1920 values consistently rise above that, >>>>therefore supporting Gabi's interpretation of detectable global >>>>warming signal by mid-20th century >>>> >>>>sending this out to others for any comments/questions - when we >>>>get the annualized Greenland O18 we will be done, unless someone >>>>knows of a reliable annual time series from China (one published >>>>last week in Science was unfortunately biannual) >>>> >>>>with regards, Tom >>>> >>>>ps 1258 cooling only about 0.5C, supporting conclusions from >>>>work I am doing with the Hamburg group that large flux at that >>>>time was associated with increased particle size, which led to >>>>increased absorption of longwave radiation and damping of cooling >>>>signal (which should have been 10X Pinatubo) >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>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/ > > >-- >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/ 3550. 2008-11-13 11:05:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:05:17 -0800 from: Spiritual Leader of the Global Community subject: The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ueamailgate01.uea.ac.uk id mADJ5rBr007026 The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency [1]Links to previous Newsletters are shown here Volume 6 Issue 11 November-December 2008 [2]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GIMProceedings/GNewsNovDec2008.htm Politics and Justice without borders Global Community Global Movement to Help Theme this month : The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency Investigative Report October 20, 2008 by Germain Dufour Spiritual Leader of the Global Community President Earth Government ______________________________________________________________________________________ Press releases The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency[3] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Planetary biodiversity zone ( Part III ) [4] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] This one is for you Obama, McCain, Palin and Biden [5] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ______________________________________________________________________________________ PETITION TO SAVE THE PLANET by Michael Ellis and Lesley Pocock Sign in at: [6]http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-theplanet.html Petition Save The Planet: 1. Re-evaluate ourselves as the prime cause of the planetary problems we are facing, and continue to re-evaluate. 2. Respect the inherent value in every single human being. 3. Respect the vastly unexplored complexity of ecosystems and life in all its forms, and the world's diverse cultures, including the open, constructive, peace-loving and responsible integrity which is evolving in Humanity. 4. Create a planetary peace and ecological culture (i.e. a sustainable civilization) 5. To positively evolve regarding issues of consumption and economy, through changes in consciousness, value systems, needs, and education 6. To recognize human potential as a prerequisite to the development of true Civilization including the power of the mind to devise appropriate technologies and enlightened strategies. 7. To use communication technology and the media and educational systems as a strategic vehicle to unite humanity for peace and non violence rather than for war 8. To integrate scientific disciplines and scientific knowledge with consciousness 9. To create universal access to the worlds knowledge and use innovative forms of education, which recapture the essence and heart of education for life. 10. To promote economic empowerment of the developing world, by developed countries, to aid in all human development. Sign the petition. Read [7] PETITION TO SAVE THE PLANET ______________________________________________________________________________________ [8]GIM daily proclamations main website Authors of research papers and articles on global issues for this month Robin Broad and John Cavanagh, How Badly Can the 'Experts' Ruin the Planet? [9] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Germain Dufour, The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency [10] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Michael Ellis and Lesley Pocock, PETITION TO SAVE THE PLANET [11] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Peter Goodchild, Peak Oil And The Systemic Collapse Of Modern Civilization [12] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Aaron Glantz, How the U.S. Military Turned Me into a Terrorist [13] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Andrew Glikson, The Methane Time Bomb And The Triple Meltdown ( Triple stands for: (1) ice sheets; (2) global economy; (3) trust in governments.) [14] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Arun Gupta, Financial Meltdown 101 [15] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] John James, The Truth About Rising Seas [16] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Michael T. Klare, How the Economic Crisis Will Affect the Environment [17] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Thomas Kostigen, There Is More to Green Than Global Warming [18] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] George Monbiot, Fear The Coming Nature Crunch [19] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Patrick OConnor, Stock Markets Fall As Global Recession Takes Hold [20] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Paul Craig Roberts, Additional Thoughts On The Bailout [21] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] David Truskoff, There Is No Quick Fix [22] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Lisa Wise, The Age of Unbridled Consumption Just Ended [23] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Conclusion of report The global crisis that triggered the planetary state of emergency[24] [cid:part2.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Financial crisis [25] Financial crisis Social-economic crisis [26] Social-economic crisis Global rights [27] Global rights Who owns the Earth ? [28] Who owns the Earth ? Agriculture, overpopulation, energy and industry for a better future [29] Agriculture, overpopulation, energy and industry for a better future Conflicts and wars are not sustainable [30] Conflicts and wars are not sustainable Resources have become the new political boundaries [31] Resources have become the new political boundaries World poverty and food crisis [32] World poverty and food crisis World Summit of the G20 nations and the new World Order [33] World Summit of the G20 nations and the new World Order Peak Oil and Gas Movement [34] Peak Oil and Gas Movement Protection of the global life-support systems and the environment [35] Protection of the global life-support systems and the environment Crisis of freshwater, food, deforestation, and ocean health [36] Crisis of freshwater, food, deforestation, and ocean health Global governance and the 21st Century democracy [37] Global governance and the 21st Century democracy Global Protection Agency (GPA) and global leadership[38] Global Protection Agency (GPA) and global leadership Global tax [39] Global tax New way of doing business and trade [40] New way of doing business and trade Nationalization of natural resources [41] Nationalization of natural resources Global Economic Model [42] Global Economic Model Planetary state of emergency [43] Planetary state of emergency Planetary biodiversity zone [44] Planetary biodiversity zone Federation of Global Governments Essential Services [45] Federation of Global Governments Essential Services Major factors have caused the global crisis which triggered the planetary state of emergency declared by the Global Community: * financial crisis * social-economic crisis * human activities destroying the Earth ecosystems and global life-support systems, and so endangering the future of life on our planet * Disconnected with reality, unfair and corrupted governance focusing only on finances, trade and consumption The global crisis has already had severe impacts on all life on Earth. The Global Community had no other choice but to declare a planetary state of emergency. Several events have contributed to the planetary state of emergency: A) Financial crisis: debts and deficits of government, bad financial fundamentals, and out-of-control stock market B) Widespread poverty and hunger in more than half the world population C) The global warming of the planet due to human activities D) Climate change E) Economic and military invasion of nations by the United States and NATO F) Absence of fair and democratic global governance at the United Nations and European Union G) Our global environment and global life-support systems are threatened by: * any of the above mentioned events * pollution worldwide * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads over the bottom of the Indian ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave in 2004. [46] [cid:part6.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it. * the U.S.A. military exploded war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. [47] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] [cid:part8.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ( [48]see enlargement ) The Global Crisis Artwork by Germain Dufour October 20, 2008 Financial crisis Over the past decade, the White House has been building up a 10 trillion dollars national debt and a half trillion dollars annual deficit. The public debt as of October 2008 is: [cid:part9.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The estimated population of the United States is 330,000,000 so each citizen's share of this debt is approximately $30,303. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.60 billion per day since September 30, 2004! The deficit is unsustainable and is the greatest single threat to the global economy. The government's budget deficit will surge past a half-trillion dollars next year. That figure is sure to rise after adding the tens of billions of dollars in additional Iraq war funding and the total could be higher yet if the economy fails to recover as the administration predicts. Bad financial fundamentals and out-of-control stock market have contributed to the bankruptcy of the US economy. A series of recent events have happened during the crash and are described here. By September 15, 2008, and a while later, Wall Street started to crash, Lehman Brothers went for bankruptcy protection, Merrill Lynch merged with Bank of America, AIG was nationalized by the U.S. Government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the U.S. Government. CEO's and big investors got out okay; ordinary employees and Main Street people suffered heavily. The collapse of the Wall Street giants came six months after the meltdown of Bear Stearns and a year after the start of the credit crisis, which was due to bad mortgage financing and real estate investments. Despite all efforts, the U.S. market took a great hit and pulled the global markets down. On September 16, the FTSE-100 share index went down 4.07 percent in London, the Paris The U.S.-style corporate capitalism that thrives on empowering the most powerful and enriching the richest was collapsing. In market-driven economies, such as those of Europe, Canada or Japan, a nation is run under the guise of democracy, yet power and wealth never percolates down to the people of the middle class. Wall Street collapse can be understood when price far outstrips the fundamental worth of the asset. Such observations have occurred in everything from real estate, stocks and consumer goods. Over a decade ago the US Government allowed regular banks to become heavily involved in investment banking. Banks have engaged in all sort of activity from underwriting insurance to investment banking to commercial banking. During that period of time Americans joined the stock mania and later lost their life savings. On September 11, 2001, people shifted to home purchases as a more secure way to build wealth. In 2002, the US Government slashed interest rates to historic lows of near 1 percent to avoid a severe economic downturn. Low interest rates make borrowed money cheap for everyone from homebuyers to banks. This ocean of credit was one factor that led to a major shift in the home-lending industry. Low interest rates also meant that homebuyers could take on larger mortgages, which supported rising prices. Every month the bank originating the mortgage receives a payment made of principal and interest from the homeowner. If the buyer defaults on the mortgage, that is, stops making monthly payments, the bank can seize and sell a valuable asset: the house. Then banks sell the mortgage to third parties, turning the loans into a commodity. By selling the loan, the bank frees up its capital so it can turn around and finance a new mortgage. Thus, the banks have an incentive to sell (or distribute) mortgages fast so they can recoup the funds to sell more mortgages. The banks made money off mortgage fees, perhaps only a few thousand dollars per loan. It was deregulation that led to the huge growth of this casino-type banking system. A little over a decade ago, Wall Street successfully lobbied the US Securities and Exchange Commission to loosen regulations on how much they could leverage against their capital reserves. This allowed the companies to invest in the fast-growing world of mortgage-backed securities. The only checks and balances left in place was self-policing by the investment banks themselves to determine if they were putting investors at risk. This was the time when the US Government was selling away America, its best financial institutions and the home of every American, to the rest of the world, which meant that when America goes bankrupted the rest of the world will be taken down with it. Good thinking actually for a nation already bankrupted by the huge expenditures of its military. Everything worked out OK as long as everyone believed housing prices would go up endlessly. Homeowners took on ever-larger mortgages in the belief that prices would keep rising rapidly. Mortgage lenders believed the loans were safe because even if the homeowner defaulted, the mortgage holder would be left with a house that was increasing in price. Confidence in rising prices led the creators and purchasers of mortgage-backed securities to think these investments were virtually risk-free. As long as the money market funds had confidence in the system, most people did not cash out the commercial paper when it came due, but rolled it over at the same interest rates. This system kept the U.S. economy growing for years. Wages have been stagnant for most Americans, but as house values skyrocketed over the last decade, many homeowners refinanced and cashed out the equity. By 2004, Americans were using home equity to finance as much $310 billion a year in personal consumption. This debt-driven consumption was the engine of growth. U.S. over-consumption was balanced by over-production in many Asian countries. Countries like China, India, Taiwan and South Korea run large trade surpluses with the United States, which speeds their economic development. They invest excess cash in U.S. credit instruments ranging from corporate debt to government bonds and bills. A country cannot over-consume forever. In the final stage of the housing success story, fewer first-time buyers could afford traditional mortgages. Rising house prices required ever-larger down payments so subprime mortgages multiplied. Since most of them were adjustable-rate mortgages, this created a time bomb. The minute interest rates went up, the rates reset, and homeowners were saddled with larger monthly payments. This has created a panic. As panic set in, money market funds began to stop rolling over the commercial paper and everyone wanted to cash it out. This forced banks to book losses. What we have learned over time and especially after the crash of Wall Street is that our governing institutions to which we give the power to set our priorities and our collective course have failed us. We might wonder how such injustice could happen in a world governed by democratically elected governments. Truly, our world is not governed by democratically elected governments. It is ruled by global financial institutions in the service of financial speculators who exchange trillions of dollars daily in search of instance unearned profits to increase the wealth, and the power, of the richest people on the planet. They bring down governments that displease them, and buy and sell the largest corporations like commodities. By design and law the defining priority and obligation of these governing institutions is to generate financial profits to make rich people richer, in short to increase inequality in a world in desperate need of greater equity. To this end, the corporations rise or fall at the pleasure of the speculator, assault of our eyes and ears with advertising messages intended to get those of who already have more goods that they need, to buy more goods. So what does this big picture overview tell us about what we need to do? How much suffering will changing our ways impose? Well, we need to grow strong caring communities in which we get more of our human satisfaction from caring relationships and less from material goods. We will need to end war as a means of settling international disputes and dismantle our military establishment. We need to reclaim the ideal of being a democratic middle-class nation without extremes of wealth and poverty. And we need to encourage and support the Global Community in doing the same. To do all this we will need create democratically accountable governing institutions devoted to the well-being of people and nature. There can be no trade offs between justice, sustainability, happiness, and democracy. They are all inseparably linked. In the end, the legendary Wall Street banks disappeared in a fortnight -- bankrupt, acquired or converted into bank holding companies. But the contagion has not been contained. Whether the 750 billion dollars bailout plan can succeed is highly questionable. People lost confidence in the banking system. Social-economic crisis Truly, to manage the global crisis, the world is going through a social-economic crisis far deeper than the financial crisis itself. In a flash, people saw the worst of humanity, what was hidden behind Wall Street, greed and mindless consumption. We are at the crossroads of the most serious economic and social crisis in modern history. The process of global impoverishment unleashed at the outset of the 1980s debt crisis has reached a major turning point, leading to the simultaneous outbreak of famines in all major regions of the developing world. There are many complex features underlying the global economic crisis pertaining to financial markets, Wall Street, the decline in production, the collapse of State institutions and the rapid development of a profit-driven war economy. This global economic restructuring forcibly impinges on three fundamental necessities of life: food, water and fuel. The provision of food, water and fuel is a precondition of civilized society: they are necessary factors for the survival of the human species. The prices of these three variables has increased dramatically at the global level, with devastating economic and social consequences. These three essential goods or commodities, which in a real sense determine the reproduction of economic and social life on planet Earth, are under the control of a small number of global corporations and financial institutions. Both the State as well as the international organizations, often referred to as the "international community" serve the unfettered interests of global capitalism known as the G8 nations. They are the new World Order. The Global Community allows people to take control of their own lives. The Global Community was built from a grassroots process with a vision for humanity that is challenging every person on Earth as well as nation governments. The Global Community has a vision of the people working together building a global civilization [49] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] including a healthy and rewarding future for the next generations. Global cooperation brings people together for a common future and the good of all. Every single human being must deal responsibly with the affairs going on in his (her) own 'global community' ~ when a person takes personal responsibility for his own affairs ~ he becomes empowered as a person. He can then reach beyond his own property and family, and help to work with others living in and around, even a part of the local community he lives in ~ the villages, the town community, the surrounding territory, and so on. The key is personal responsibility. Therefore the individual is the important element, one who takes responsibility for his or her community. This individual cares about jobs, homes, streets, the welfare and success of his community. [50] [cid:part10.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] When a group of ordinary people realized they, personally, will make the changes they need in their fields, in their village. They can then find ways to bring these changes for all. There is a wisdom in the ways of very humble people that needs to be used. Every humble person deserves to have ideas respected, the courage to develop his own life for the better and for the good of all. Sound solutions to help manage and sustain Earth will very likely be found this way. Everyone can help assess the needs of the planet now and propose sound solutions for its proper management, present and future. Global rights Consumers' rights impinge on the rights of other humans living in the Global Community. The right to choice is the consumer right that refers to the right to have a range and variety of goods and services at competitive, fair prices and variable, satisfactory quality. In order to assure choice in the developed country markets, governments have implemented trade laws to facilitate cross border transactions and transnational corporations (TNCs) have set up business off shore so they can lessen the cost of the production process. The goods that are available in the developed country markets are provided by slave labour, child labour, sweatshops or in countries that allow the TNCs to forego adhering to pollution or ecological concerns and human rights in pursuit of profit. Labour rights are abused in efforts to earn more profits. This leads to abhorrent working conditions, job insecurity and low living standards (all human rights). The WTO and NAFTA are such organizations promoting free trade at the expenses of labour rights and the environment. Consumers in developed countries have been socialized to want more and more things to consume but have not been socialized to appreciate the impact of their consumption choices on the human rights of other people; that is, they are not being responsible for their decisions. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control. GlobalRights year one [51] Global Rights year one is a new impetus of the Global Community to educate everyone about the need for a change in thinking and of doing things amongst the people of all nations. We need to realize what is a priority, what is the most important, and what is the least important for our survival. We need to make hard choices. We need a clear vision. We need a common vision. And we must all change! There are many important aspects of our lives we can no longer do, or should never do anymore. They are destructive. Humanity and all life can no longer afford activities that destroy life and the global environment, and certainly the military is a major one. And there are other activities we must do, thousands of them, to assure the survival of life on Earth. In view of the planetary state of emergency, which we declared a shorth while ago, we all must change, we must do things differently to give life on Earth a better survival chance. And this is what Global Rights year one is about: to establish global fundamentals and a clear vision to follow, and to offer the people of all nations the Global Movement to Help. Perhaps the Scale of Global Rights represents the strongest pillar of our vision. In 1985, the Scale of Human and Earth Rights was first proposed as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. After several decades of research and development, many global dialogues, we still find the Scale as the best solution to global problems. The Scale has now been titled theScale of Global Rights. [52] Scale of Global Rights [53]Human and Earth rights [54]Scale of Human and Earth Rights [55]Chapter X of the Global Constitution is about the Scale of Human and Earth Rights Today, we are presenting once more the Scale as the best educating tool to bring about the change the people of the world need to achieve for their own survival. Thus global rights include: * Human rights * Rights of global citizens * Earth rights * Peace and Justice rights for all life as researched and developed by the Global Community * Rights of global politics, and Earth Government * Rights of global justice for all life * Rights of global protection for all life Global rights are defined in details in the section the Scale of Global Rights. [56] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] These rights are dependent of their position on the Scale of Global Rights. The Global Community found evident that the ecological base is the essential prerequisite for the effectiveness and exercise of all rights recognized for human beings. The stewardship of the ecological base has to be given priority before the fulfilment of various economic and social wishes. Demands resulting from the socio-economic system of a particular country have to find their limits in the protection of the global ecosystem. Vital interests of future generations have to be considered as having priority before less vital interests of the present generation. Supply chains have to be designed in a way, that the goods can enter after usage or consumption into natural or industrial recycling processes. If serious damages to persons, animals, plants and the ecosystem cannot be excluded, an action or pattern of behaviour should be refrained from. A measure for supplying goods or services should choose a path which entails the least possible impact on the ecological and social system concerned. This way functioning proven systems will not be disturbed, and unnecessary risks will not be taken. Supply strategies consuming less resources should have preference before those enhancing more resource consumption. When there is a need to find a solution to a problem or a concern, a sound solution would be to choose a measure or conduct an action, if possible, which causes reversible damage as opposed to a measure or an action causing an irreversible loss. To determine rights requires an understanding of needs and reponsibilities and their importance. The Scale of Global Rights is the best guidance for continuing this process. The Scale shows social values in order of importance and so will help us understand the rights of a community. What are the universal needs and rights of a person, family, and that of a global community? In connection between human well-being and a sound environment, Earth rights are ecological rights and the rights that human beings have in protecting their global life-support systems. Earth rights are those rights that demonstrate the connection between human well-being and a sound environment. They include individuals and global communities human rights and the rights to a clean environment, and participation in development decisions. We define ecological rights as those rights of the ecosystem of the Earth beyond human purpose. They are those rights that protect and preserve the ecological heritage of the Earth for future generations. The Earth Court of Justice guarantees ecological rights in its Statute. The Court guarantees also the rights to a safe environment and an environment free from environmental degradation. Global rights represent an ideal and a supreme goal which can give meaning to life in society. Throughout the history of humanity, the rights of human beings have been defined and enshrined with reference to the values of the dignity of each individual and of freedom, equality and justice. Human dignity resides in each of us, and this dignity must be recognized and respected by all. These values are universal. The Global Community has accepted and enshrined them into its own ways of behaving and dealing with all peoples. Cultures and societies differ so much that their expression takes varying forms, but diversity does not affect the foundation of inalienable values constituted by Global Rights. Each individual is recognized as a representative of humankind. The Global Community recognizes that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Freedom is both a principle and a value. Individuals have the freedom of decision and action to the extent that their actions do not interfere with the rights of others. It is because human beings are free that they are subject of law and are creators and holders of rights. Whay good would be freedom if Earth rights are out-of-control? Freedom and Global Rights are therefore basic to each other. Social justice is another universal value to which the Global Community aspires and accepts as a universal value. Social justice consists in sharing wealth with a view to greater equality and the equal recognition of each individual's merits. All persons within a given society deserve equal access to goods and services that fulfill basic human needs. The idea that beneath the surface of our wondrous cultural diversity most humans want the same thing is consistent with recent scientific findings that our human brains are wired for compassion, caring, altruism, and cooperation. It turns out that most people everywhere, irrespective of their skin color, religion, nationality, or language are happiest when they are being helpful, loving, peaceful, generous, and cooperative. Isn't that stunning? Think of the possibilities. People of color and women won recognition of their full human rights only as the civil rights and women's movements successfully exposed the fallacy of the story that people of color and women are less than fully human. Recognizing the full humanity of all peoples opens us to a deeper understanding of what it truly does mean to be human in all the rich potentials that our human nature embodies. The global environmental movement [57] [cid:part11.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] is replacing the story that nature is a dark and evil threat to be subdued, vanquished, and used for whatever purposes please us with the story of Earth as a living being, the mother of life, a living spaceship, the Global Community. [58] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Through sharing stories about what makes us truly happy, we come to see the fallacy of the advertising story that material consumption is our source of happiness. Once this fallacy is seen for what it is, we can enthusiastically share our stories of how we are improving the quality of our lives by reducing the quantity of our consumption and gaining control of our time to do more of the things that make us feel fully alive. In everything you do, share the story of our human possibility and of our right and responsibility to create for ourselves and for future generations, the world of our shared dream. Our distinctive human capacity for reflection and intentional choice carries a corresponding moral responsibility to care for our Mother Earth and for one another. We must now test the limits of the individual and collective creative potential of our species as we strive to become the change we seek. In these turbulent and frightening times, it is important to remind ourselves that we are privileged to live at the most exciting moment of creative opportunity in the whole of the human experience. The future is in our hands. Now is the hour. We have the power to turn this world around. We are the ones we have been waiting for. We also accept global rights as part of our universal values from which we base our decisions. Global Rights are closely intertwined with democracy. Respect for Global Rights and fundamental freedoms is one of the characteristics of a 21st Century democracy. The typical fundamental freedoms of a democracy (freedom of expression, thought, assembly, and association) are themselves part of human rights. These freedoms can exist everywhere. Democracy is a political system based on the participation of the people. It foresees the separation of powers among the judiciary, the legislative and the executive authorities, as well as free and regular elections. There are a whole range of global rights. Let us give here a practical example, one that is at the of the Scale of Global Rights. Photosynthesis, is the process by which green plants and certain other organisms use the energy of light to convert carbon dioxide and water into the simple sugar glucose. In so doing, photosynthesis provides the basic energy source for virtually all organisms. An extremely important byproduct of photosynthesis is Oxygen, on which most organisms depend. [cid:part12.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] [cid:part13.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Photosynthesis occurs in green plants, seaweeds, algae, and certain bacteria. These organisms are veritable sugar factories, producing millions of new glucose molecules per second. Plants use much of this glucose, a carbohydrate, as an energy source to build leaves, flowers, fruits, and seeds. They also convert glucose to cellulose, the structural material used in their cell walls. Most plants produce more glucose than they use, however, and they store it in the form of starch and other carbohydrates in roots, stems, and leaves. The plants can then draw on these reserves for extra energy or building materials. Virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and Oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. It is a part of the global life-support systems and is a right that needs protecting at all costs. The right and responsibility that human beings have in protecting photosynthesis has the highest importance on the Scale of Global Rights. [59] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Who owns the Earth ?[60] [cid:part6.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] In today's affairs a very powerful few are in possession of the Earth's resources, the land and all its riches, and all the franchises and other privileges that yield a return. These few people operate virtually without taxation. Is that what we want as a global democracy? Who should own the Earth? [cid:part14.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ( [61]see enlargement ) Who owns the Earth ? Artwork by Germain Dufour October 19, 2008 Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is conected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources.We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. "A global community" is not about a piece of land you acquired by force or otherwise. One could think of a typical community that does not have to be bounded by a geographical or political border. It can be people living in many different locations all over the world. The Global Community is thus more fluid and dynamic. We need to let go the archaic ways of seeing a community as the street where we live and contained by a border. Many conflicts and wars will be avoided by seeing ourselves as people with a heart, a mind and a Soul, and as part of a community with the same. The old concept of a community being the street where we live in and surrounded by a definite geographical and political boundary has originated during the Roman Empire period. An entire new system of values was then created to make things work for the Roman Empire. Humanity has lived with this concept over two thousand years. Peoples from all over the world are ready to kill anyone challenging their border. They say that this is their land, their property, their 'things'. This archaic concept is endangering humanity and its survival. The Roman Empire has gone but its culture is still affecting us today. We need to let go the old way of thinking. We need to learn of the new concept, and how it can make things work in the world. A typical community may be what a group of people, together, wants it to be. It can be a group of people sharing with the same values. It can be a group of people with the same cultural background, or the same religious background. Or they can be people with totally different backgrounds and beliefs. The people making a global community may be living in many different locations on the planet. With today's communications it is easy to group people in this fashion. It can be a village, or two villages together where people have decided to unite as one community. The two villages may be found in different parts of the world. It can be a town, a city, or a nation. It can be two or more nations together. Following this thinking we see land ownership is no longer a problem. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. We will see in the Preview how this new system can work. Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil and gas etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to such natural resources. On the global level the Law of the Seas Covenant is an example of a global community lease payment basis for public needs as it has affirmed that ocean resources are the common heritage of all and a proper source of funding for global institutions. Water belongs to the Earth and all species and is sacred to life therefore, the worlds water must be conserved, reclaimed and protected for all future generations and its natural patterns respected. Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government; therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes. These rights must be enshrined at all levels of government. In particular, an international treaty must ensure these principles are noncontrovertable. Water is best protected by local communities and citizens, who must be respected as equal partners with governments in the protection and regulation of water. Peoples of the Earth are the only vehicle to promote democracy and save water. Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and conserved for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life. The Global Community should set up expert groups and begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels. This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future and bring some light to understanding previous claims of the many different groups. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. Along with ownership comes the obligation of using the resources, share them or lose them. Land and all other Earth natural resources are not commodities. Use the land, share it or lose it. This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world and to Wall Street. You own property because the previous owners could not pay. Use that property, share it or lose it. How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned not just by the people living in it but by all life on Earth and the Soul of Life, the Soul of Humanity. Unless a reformed or empowered Global Community is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for all Global Citizens, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labour. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property. Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few. So the ownership of the land and the natural resources will be challenged by the Global Community. People need all tax dollars to take on the challenge but first must get out of spending on the military invasion of nations. From the Global Community perspective, any new sustainable community brave enough to live on a new, inhabitated land owns it. That is a basic principle. There no need to ask permission from any organization such as the International Court of Justice or the United Nations. What makes 'a global community' ? A global community has a well defined criteria based on global symbiotical relationships. And it does not require the occupation of a specific area of land. These relationships allow a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy. All over the world, there is also a vast array of different life-form communities that inhabit land, water and air. Everyone of those global communities, human and otherwise, have an Earth right of ownership of the planet and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. And the best way to do that is by creating a security and biodiversity zone all over the planet. Truly, the world is on the threshold of a global revolution, and needs to proceed with the non-violent approach. The Global Community needs to build an economic democracy based firmly on the basic principle that the Earth belongs equally to everyone as a birthright. The Earth is for all people to labour and live on and should never be the possession of any individual, corporation, or uncaring government, any more than the air or water, or any other Earth natural resources. An individual, or a business should have no more than is needed for a healthy living. Global Community criteria for sovereignty: * a global community is in place * the land and its natural resources are just enough to live a sustainable life and for a healthy living * the community governs its owns affairs as per the Scale of Global Rights, Global Law, Global Constitution, and the protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems * a symbiotical relationship exists between the citizens and the Global Community * a democracy based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources within the community rightly belongs to the community along with the Global Community, and that the Earth is the birthright of all life * Earth management and taxation of all Earth natural resources Without this criteria no one can claim ownership - sovereignty - of any geographical area on the planet. The Global Community has in fact been defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. Global Parliament has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose. We are all members of the Global Community. We all have the duty to protect the rights and welfare of all species and all people. No humans have the right to encroach on the ecological space of other species and other people, or treat them with cruelty and violence. All life species, humans and cultures, have intrinsic worth. They are subjects, not commodities, not objects of manipulation or ownership. No humans have the right to own other species, other people or the knowledge of other cultures through patents and other intellectual property rights. Defending biological and cultural diversity is a duty of all people. Diversity is an end in itself, a value, a source of richness both material and cultural. All members of the Global Community including all humans have the right to food and water, to safe and clean habitat, to security of ecological space. These rights are natural rights, they are birthrights given by the fact of existence on Earth and are best protected through global community rights and global commons. They are not given by states or corporations, nor can they be extinguished by state or corporate action. No state or corporation has the right to erode or undermine these natural rights or enclose the commons that sustain all through privatisation or monopoly control. The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" along with the Global Community where they are found. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. The Global Community criteria for sovereignty implies control, authority over a territory. The concept of state sovereignty is embedded in international law. Traditionally, this definition reflects a states right to jurisdictional control, territorial integrity, and non-interference by outside states. Sovereignty implies both undisputed supremacy over the lands inhabitants and independence from unwanted intervention by an outside authority. However, sovereignty has also been increasingly defined in terms of state responsibility and Earth management. This includes a states exercise of control and authority over its territory, and the perception of this control and authority by other states. Sovereignty is thus linked to the maintenance of international security and to the protection of the environment and the global life-support systems. Across the globe, reserves of oil and gas that were previously regarded as uneconomical are being actively explored and developed. From the Arctic to East Asia to the South Atlantic, untapped billions of barrels of oil are attracting the interests of energy companies and speculative finance capital, seeking to take advantage of the high price of crude oil. One of the greatest potential oil and gas bonanzas is to be found beneath the Arctic Ocean. A report issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), 24 July estimated that the Arctic region holds around 90 billion barrels of oilequal to the total proven reserves of Russia, the worlds second biggest oil producer. Up to 30 percent of the worlds unproven natural gas deposits could also lie beneath the ice, as well as a possible one-fifth of untapped reserves of natural gas liquids. To date, most of the Arctic Ocean is international water, covered all year by a thick ice sheet. Russia, like all countries around the North Pole, claims sovereignty over the seas up to 200-nautical miles (370 km) from its coast. Canada is developing military capabilities in its far north, with an army training centre based at Resolute Bay and a port for a new fleet of ice-strengthened patrol ships on the northern tip of Baffin Island. These capabilities, as well as a $40 million mapping project in the Arctic, are aimed at fending off its rivals. Canada is especially concerned about the US claim that the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific, should it open due to retreating ice, must be an international sea route. Ottawa insists that the passage would be an internal Canadian waterway. Energy reserves in Alaska and the Chukchi Sea have become a key part of US plans to boost domestic oil production. Speaking for the oil conglomerates who stand to make tens of billions of dollars from these oil fields, on June 18 President Bush pressed Congress to reverse the longstanding ban on offshore drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, as well approving the development of onshore production on federal lands. More than half of the undiscovered oil resources are estimated to occur in just three geologic provinces: Arctic Alaska (30 billion barrels), the Amerasia Basin (9.7 billion barrels) and the East Greenland Rift Basins (8.9 billion barrels). More than 70 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas is likely to be in three provinces: the West Siberian Basin (651 tcf), the East Barents Basins (318 tcf) and Arctic Alaska (221 tcf), the USGS said. The study took in all areas north of latitude 66.56 degrees north, and included only reserves that could be tapped using existing techniques. Experimental or unconventional prospects such as oil shale, gas hydrates and coal-bed methane were not included in the assessment. The 90 billion barrels of oil expected to be in the Arctic in total are more than all the known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and could meet current world oil demand of 86.4 million barrels a day for almost three years. The significance of these facts is that it puts firm figures for the first time on the hydrocarbon riches which the five countries surrounding the Arctic - the US, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark (through its dependency, Greenland) - have been eyeing up for several years. Truly, who owns the Artic region? Do these five nations own it? Does putting a flag on the Moon give you ownership of the Moon? Our first explorers did not own the land just because they stepped foot on North America. Just because you put a flag on Mount Everest means you own the mountain. You dont! And the Inuit dont own Nunavut either. The population density of Nunavut is 0.015 persons per square kilometer. So 82.4% of Nunavut is practically empty of people. One can say Nunavut is mostly without people. If someday a colony is set up on the Moon will that mean the people making up the colony owns the Moon? No it does not! The people of the colony could say they own an area large enough for their own survival, a sustainable living. Not the entire Moon. Similarly for the Inuit people. They dont own Nunavut. The Inuit are in large part being taken care of by the Canadian Government. They are being used by the Canadian Government to claim soverighty of Nunavut. Somewhat like the colony on the Moon would be taken care of by the nation on Earth. So the Inuit people can only claim to own a small area around their communities. This means that people from all over the world could come to settle a community in Nunavut. In Nunavut there is also a vast array of different life-form communities such as the polar bears, caribou, Arctic foxes, seals, beluga whales, northern fulmars, and those communities of organisms that inhabit the sea floor like brittle stars, worms, zooplankton, microalgae, bivalves and some of the lesser known sea spiders. And there are many more. Everyone of those global communities have an Earth right of ownership of the North and of all its natural resources. It is their birthright. They dont express themselves in English, but we understand them. Human beings have a moral obligation to protect and conserve the biodiversity of life on Earth. The Earth management of Nunavut is an asset to the Global Community and Canada. The Global Constitution shows us how it can be done with Global Law, the Earth Court of Justice, and how the Global Protection Agency (GPA) [62] Global Protection Agency (GPA) and the Agency of Global Police (AGP) [63] Agency of Global Police (AGP) can protect the territory. Global Community Arrest Warrants can be issued to anyone breaking Global Law. The Global Community of North America (GCNA) [64] Global Community of North America (GCNA) website Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre [65] Global Community of North America (GCNA) Emergency, Rescue, and Relief Centre is vigilant and quick in helping all life in need of help. Fot the protection of those global communities we will need to create a biodiversity zone in the North by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. Agriculture, overpopulation, energy and industry for a better future Comprehensive population policies are an essential element in a world development strategy that combines access to reproductive health services, education and economic opportunities, improved energy and natural resource technologies, and to healthier models of consumption and the 'good life'. People have to regulate their population by means that are voluntary and benign and have to take along with a fair proportion of other lifeforms. Proper Earth management will certainly be a necessary tool to achieve this goal. If not there will be a collapse of humanity and environment. From now on every global decision we do will have tremendous consequences on our future. Global poverty, aspects and issues [66] Global poverty, aspects and issues are related to the problem of overpopulation. In general, populations of all lifeforms grow exponentially that is by a steady proportion of whatever was there before. When there is no practical limit on resource then populations usually grow maximally and the only limit is that of the reproductive capacity of the female animal. About 10,000 years ago, human beings were obliged to commit themselves more or less fully to agriculture and the human population was 5 to 10 million. By the time of Christ, after only 8,000 years of large-scale agriculture, the human population was 100 to 300 million. After this time, the exponential growth of the population entered its rapid phase. The billion mark was passed by 1800 A.D. By year 2000, the human population exceeded 6 billion. Thus agriculture allowed a thousand-fold increase in numbers over a period of 10,000 years. In practical sense, agriculture cannot feed a human population [67] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] that has grown beyond the capacity limit. We must ask ourselves whether we can stop the growth by means that are voluntary and benign, or whether the eventual environmental restraint will be out of our hands. At some questionable time in our future we will find that our soil will no longer have the nutrients it needs to produce quality food. For some time we may counter this problem by fresh weathering of rock. Not for long! The loss of lifeforms on Earth will be permanent. Obviously something has to be done! The Global Community proposes a tight global policy, benignly implemented, or it will be very nasty indeed. In practice, a human population of 10 to 12 billion would be too uncomfortably high and would add a high strain on world resources. What kind of world population would be reasonable? What goal should we aim at? A population should be small enough to be sustainable indefinitely and still allow plenty of leeway for ourselves and other lifeforms. It should also be large enough to allow the formation of healthy civilizations. We propose a world population of 500 million. The policy to apply is for every family to have only one or two children. It would take a thousand years to reach our goal of a population of 500 million. In 30 years an additional 200 million hectares will be needed to feed the growing populations in the tropics and subtropics, but only 93 million hectares are available in these nations for farms. Most of that land is forested and should be preserved. Other ways to feed this new population include: * improved agricultural practices * make use of salt-tolerant crops obtained by genetic engineering or use domesticated wild plants that are already salt-tolerant * make use of stem cells for meat production, i.e. mass-producing of muscle tissue rather than animals With one-fifth of the world's total population, China has only 7% of the world's arable land. Mountains or deserts cover two-thirds of China, making only the balance of the land available to 1.5 billion people. An equitable and humane solution to overpopulation and overconsumption may be possible. Over the past millions of years, human beings have evolved into the dominant lifeform on the planet. However, in the last several centuries we have increasingly been using our relatively newly acquired power, especially our culturally evolved technologies, to deplete the natural capital of Earth, in particular its deep, rich agricultural soils, its groundwater stored during ice ages, and its biodiversity. This trend is being driven in large part by a combination of population growth and increasing per capita consumption, and it cannot be long continued without risking a collapse of our global civilization. Too many people, especially too many politicians and business executives, are under the delusion that such a disastrous end to the modern human enterprise can be avoided by economic and technological fixes that will allow the population and the economy to grow forever. The global financial crisis is a good example of using 'a fix' to fix the problem. Hundreds of billions of dollars were put into the global economy to fix the problem. But if we fail to bring population growth and over-consumption under control, the number of people on Earth is expected to grow from 6.7 billion today to 9 billion by the second half of the 21st century, then we will inhabit a planet where life becomes increasingly untenable because of looming crises: global warming, conflicts and wars over resources, and the degradation of the natural systems on which we all depend. The Global Community believes it is possible to build a better future for all of us by developing some consensus on goals through Global Dialogue 2009 [68] [cid:part11.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] in which people discuss the human predicament and decide whether they would like to see a maximum number of people living at a minimum standard of living, or perhaps a much lower population size that gives individuals a broad choice of lifestyles. It is clear that only widespread changes in norms can give humanity a chance of attaining a sustainable and reasonably conflict-free society. To achieve such change will involve everything from demographic policies and transformation of planet-wide energy, industrial, and agricultural systems, to North-South and interfaith relationships and military postures. Politicians, ecologists, industrialists, social scientists, everyday citizens, and the media must join this dialogue. Whether it is possible remains to be seen; societies have managed to make major transitions in the recent past, as the civil rights revolution in the United States and the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union clearly demonstrate. We will continue to hope and work for a cultural transformation in how we treat each other and the natural systems we depend upon. We can create a peaceful and sustainable global civilization, but it will require realistic thinking about the problems we face and a new mobilization of political will. There is a growing awareness that the unrestrained growth of populations should pay for itself. Taxes and utility costs must escalate in order to pay for the growth. In addition, growth brings increased levels of congestion, frustration, and air pollution. In recent years, several industrialized nations have seen taxpayer revolts in the form of ballot questions that were adopted to limit the allowed tax increases. The revolts have been in the nations that claimed to be the most prosperous because they had the largest rates of population growth. These limits on taxes were felt to be necessary to stop the tax increases that were required to pay for the growth. Unfortunately the growth has managed to continue, while the schools and other public agencies have suffered from the shortage of funds. Communities can slow their population growth by removing the many visible and hidden public subsidies that support and encourage growth. It clear that there will always be large opposition to programs of making population growth pay for itself. Those who profit from growth will use their considerable resources to convince the community that the community should pay the costs of growth. In our communities, making growth pay for itself could be a major tool to use in stopping the population growth. Nations experiencing decreases in Total Fertility Rate (TFR) are nations that are very different from each other racially, religiously, and politically, implying that the drive to stabilize populations is a global movement. It is being realized that more people now means less of everything else now and for generations to come, and that more people simply cause additional strain on already-strained resources. In fact, decreasing fertility is an important part of an economic development strategy. What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human species if this population growth continues at its present rate? It will be completely destroyed. Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive overpopulation. Convenience and decency cannot survive overpopulation. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one person matters. Having reached 6.7 billion in 2008, human population continues to grow. It was estimated that the population of the world in year 2050 will be over 9 billion. UN population projections for the year 2050 range from 7.9 billion to 10.9 billion, suggesting the extent to which we can influence our future. More people and higher incomes worldwide are multiplying humanity 's impact on the environment and on natural resources essential to life. Based on these trends, it is clear that the 21st century will witness even greater pressures on natural and social resources. Current demographic trends offer hope, however. Over the past 40 years the average number of children born to each woman has fallen from five to less than three. Young people increasingly want to wait to have children and to have smaller families. Policymakers have a choice. They can do nothing, or they can help ensure that in the 21st century the world 's population peaks with fewer than 8 billion people, simply by committing the financial resources to meet the needs of couples who want to have smaller families, later in life. Clearly the environmental challenges facing humanity in the 21st century and beyond would be less difficult in a world with slower population growth or none at all. Population is a critical variable influencing the availability of each of the natural resources considered here. And access to family planning services is a critical variable influencing population. Use of family planning contributes powerfully to lower fertility, later childbearing, and slower population growth. Yet policymakers, environmentalists and the general public remain largely unaware of the growing interest of young people throughout the world in delaying pregnancies and planning their families. In greater proportions than ever, girls want to go to school and to college, and women want to find fulfilling and well-paid employment. Helping people in every country to obtain the information and services they need to put these ambitions into effect is all that can be done, and all that needs to be done, to end world population growth in the new century. Reproductive health services can help. Voluntary family planning and other reproductive health services can help couples avert high-risk pregnancies, prevent unwanted childbearing and abortion, and avoid diseases such as HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, that can lead to death, disability, and infertility. Comprehensive reproductive health services, especially care in pregnancy and childbirth and for sexually transmitted infections, are key to preventing disability and death and improving women's health. Better access to emergency care during childbirth and safe abortion services would also contribute significantly to lower maternal death rates. Family planning diminishes risks associated with frequent childbearing and helps reduce reliance on abortion. An important obstacle to couple negotiation of contraceptive use and protection from STDs including HIV is that most women have unequal access to resources and decision-making. Yet women are more vulnerable to the consequences of unplanned pregnancies and often HIV/STI's. For these reasons, countering the prevailing gender stereotypes that increase risky behaviors and decrease couple communication is a key strategy for promoting good reproductive health. Individuals, too, can help bring about a world that is more secure and more supportive of life, health and happiness. They can educate themselves on population dynamics, consumption patterns and the impact of these forces on natural resources and the environment. They can be socially, politically and culturally active to elevate the issues they care about. They can become more environmentally responsible in their purchasing decisions and their use of energy and natural resources. And individuals and couples can consider the impacts of their reproductive decisions on their communities and the world as a whole. The world's forests provide goods and services essential to human and planetary well-being. But forests are disappearing faster today than ever before. Due both to deforestation and human population growth, the current ratio of forests to human beings is less than half what it was in 1960. Yet we not only need more forests, we need forests more than ever beforeto protect the world's remaining plant and animal life, to prevent flooding, to slow human-induced climate change, and to provide the paper on which education and communication still depend. More efficient consumption of forest products and eventual stabilization of human populationa prospect that appears more promising today as birthrates declinewill be needed to conserve the world's forests in the coming millennium. Population dynamics are among the primary underlying causes of forest decline. Poverty, corruption, inequitable access to land and wasteful consumption practices also influence the decisions of governments, corporations and individuals to cut and clear forests. The interaction of these forces is most evident in areas such as South Asia, Central America and sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty, rapid population growth and weak institutions contribute to forest loss and severe environmental degradation. The dominant force in forest loss is growth in the demand for farmland. Subsistence agriculture is the principal cause of forest loss in Africa, Asia and much of Latin America. Slash-and-burn farming and other traditional techniques were sustainable for centuries when population densities were lower. Today they are a major factor, along with the expansion of commercial farms and livestock grazing areas, in the permanent conversion of wooded land to agriculture. The need to increase food production is expected to accelerate the forest-to-farmland cycle, especially in countries where alternatives for meeting this demand are limited. A typical American uses 15 times as much lumber and paper as a resident of a developing country. Reducing wood consumption in the industrialized world is unlikely to stop forest loss in developing countries however, since most of the wood consumed comes from trees in the industrialized countries themselves. Nevertheless, the consumption model offered to the rest of the world threatens accelerated forest loss as both populations and economies grow in developing countries. Population policies based on human development and the Scale of Global Rights offer the greatest hope for the future of forests. This is not an argument for population "control" but for the social investments that allow couples to choose when to have children and how many to have. Programs linking conservation activities with family planning services show promise for achieving both the sustainable use of forests and greater acceptance of reproductive health services. Sustainable wood consumption is essential for the future of forests. Individuals and institutions alike should promote the ecologically sound and socially responsible use of forest products. Eco-labeling, or the environmental certification of wood products, could speed the adoption of more sustainable forestry practices. Consumer demand for green-certified paper and other wood products is an important complement to recycling and other efforts to reduce wood consumption. Comprehensive population policies are an essential element in a world development strategy that combines access to reproductive health services, to education and economic opportunities, to improved energy and natural resource technologies, and to healthyer models of consumption and the "good life." Policies to decrease world population: delay reproduction until later in life Delaying reproduction is important in influencing population growth rates. Over a period of 60 years, if people delay reproduction until they are 30 years old, you would have only two generations, while if you do not delay reproduction you would have three generations (one generation every 20 years). spread your children farther apart to have fewer children overall government commitment to decreasing population growth Create policies that help decreasing the number of children being born. Policies such as income tax deductions for dependent children and maternity and paternity leaves are essentially pronatalist and should be eliminated. programs that are locally designed and that include information on family planning and access to contraceptives educational programs that emphasize the connection between family planning and social good The vast disparities in reproductive health worldwide and the greater vulnerability of the poor to reproductive risk point to several steps all governments can take, with the support of other sectors, to improve the health of women and their families: * Give women more life choices. The low social and economic status of women and girls sets the stage for poor reproductive health * Invest in reproductive health care * Encourage delays in the onset of sexual activity and first births * Help couples prevent and manage unwanted childbearing * Ensure universal access to maternal health care * Support new reproductive health technologies * Increase efforts to address the HIV pandemic * Involve communities in evaluating and implementing programs * Develop partnerships with the private sector, policymakers and aid donors to broaden support for reproductive health * Measure Progress More and more young people on every continent want to start bearing children later in life and to have smaller families than at any time in history. Likewise, in greater proportions than ever, women and girls in particular want to go to school and to college, and they want to find fulfilling and well-paid employment. Helping people in every country obtain the information and services they need to put these ambitions into effect is all that can be done, and all that needs to be done, to bring world population growth to a stable landing in the new century.Conflicts and wars are not sustainable Building global communities require understanding of global problems this generation is facing. There are several major problems: conflicts and wars, no tolerance and compassion for one another, world overpopulation, human activities, as population increases the respect and value of a human life is in decline, insufficient protection and prevention for global health, scarcity of resources and drinking water, poverty, Fauna and Flora species disappearing at a fast rate, global warming and global climate change, global pollution, deforestation, permanent lost of the Earth's genetic heritage, and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet. We need to build global communities for all life on the planet. We need to build global communities that will manage themselves with the understanding of the above problems. The entire planet is in a state of low intensity civil war. The ruling elite profit off of the exploitation of the rest of the world. Poverty, large wealth gap between rich and poor, between the industrialized nations and the developing nations have been at the origin of conflicts and wars. There is lack of tolerance and compassion for one another. Conflicts and wars are not sustainable. They never were. The military option, war, is against global sustainability, global right, and global peace in a big way. The worst environmental degradation happens in wars. Farm products in fields and livestock are abandoned, there is no more control on toxic wastes, and water, air, and land are polluted. People are displaced and feel no longer responsible for the quality of life in their communities. Historically, the industrialized nations have caused the most damage to the environment, with their careless technology and policies. Emissions from factories and vehicles have caused ozone depletion, acid rain, and dangerous greenhouse gases have forced the global warming of the planet and the climate to change dangerously, the worst threat to humanity and all life. Leaders of the wealthier nations must be willing to accept responsibility for past mistakes and to help pay the financial burden for environmental protection of the developing nations. This is the most damaging conflict of interests between the rich industrialized countries and those that are poor and struggling just for existence. War is the greatest violation of global rights that one people can inflict on another. It brings deaths and injuries, starvation, diseases, millions of people losing their homes and livelihoods, and massive destruction of property. Children and teenagers are placed in internment camps, and several are often forced to serve as soldiers. War not only corrupts the morals of soldiers, it leads to a decline in the morality of the whole nation. Political and military leaders are always convinced that their particular war is justified. From their point of view, there are several reasons to go to war: loyalty to allies, religion, a thirst for power, greed, ancient grievances to be settled, or the desire to alleviate suffering among their people. A nonviolent settlement to a conflict would always be more advantageous. War is self-defeating because it cannot secure what it sets out to achieve, protection against attack. The hatred for the enemy whipped up by war and the desire for revenge among the losers leads to an accursed vicious circle from which there is no escape. The difference between agressive and defensive, or just and unjust wars, is ridiculous. They are tags each side adopted to suit its interests. War and militarism destroy civil liberties within a nation. What happens to a person's conscience when he/she wears the uniform of the soldier? It is enslaved to the state. He must kill when ordered. No government, whether democratic or despotic, can allow the soldier to decide what to do according to his conscience. That would undermine discipline and the power to fight. Territorial conflicts has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. The impacts of our democracy are destroying the Earth global life-support systems. A few people have control over so much of the Earth. To live in a world at peace and have conditions of basic justice and fairness in human interactions, our democratic values must be based on the principle of equal rights to the Earth. Wars truly make no sense! The world is too crowded and too small nowadays! And weapons too lethal! So security cannot be achieved through the military. The only job the military should be asked to do today is to protect the global life-support systems. These systems have the highest priority on the Scale of Global Rights [69] [cid:part4.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] and are certainly more important than any of the other rights on the Scale including security. Simply because without life there is no other rights possible. Without Oxygen there is no life! Without clean water there is no life! So protect life on Earth at all costs. Wars are the biggest threat to life and to the ecosystems of the planet. Once again, this time in Iraq, we see the natural resource wealth of an entire nation enriching none but a criminal class and megacorporations. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the worlds oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion. If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the worlds oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at todays prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion. Who will get Iraqs oil? One of the Bush administrations benchmarks for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraqs 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest including all yet to be discovered oil under foreign corporate control for 30 years. The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administrations cavalier attitude towards nation-building has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth. If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East? The costs are about ten billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical supremacy and gas for voters. Resources have become the new political boundaries Territorial conflicts has for millennium been the basis of war and mass killing of others. Throughout the ages wars have been fought over land, and other Earth natural resources. We have seen oil conflicts in the Persian Gulf, and the Caspian Sea Basin. We have seen water conflicts in the Nile Basin, the Jordan, and Indus River Basins. We have seen wars being fought over minerals and timber in Brazil, Angola, Cambodia, Columbia, Congo, Liberia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of economic and military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries. Democracy is an excuse to gain control over those resources by mega corporations. 'Blood oil and gas' is certainly a proof of this statement. [70] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. World poverty and food crisis In developing countries, the most important environmental pressure is linked to poverty. Poor people put pressure on the land and forests, over-exploiting them to survive. These countries must be helped. They must accept the implementation of the Scale of Global Rights and the Global Constitution of Earth Government into their way of life. We must give them access to technologies that use fewer resources, energy efficient technologies, 'clean' technologies. We cannot grow our way out of poverty. The only way to end poverty and heal our social divisions on an already over stressed planet is through a redistribution of resources from rich to poor and from nonessential to essential uses. [71] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The continued economic growth in India and China is an important factor to reduce world poverty. The rich-poor gap is getting wider in developing countries as well as within richer countries. Factors to help reduce the gap: * be sustainable locally first and globally next only if needed. Let go the WTO, NAFTA or any free trade agreement that destroy your economy. * annulment of world debt * national economic policy reforms * creation of symbiotical relationships between high-income countries with those less industrialized and entrepreneurial cultures * improved international financial governance * educating people about the Scale of Global Rights The debt of the developing nations to the rich nations was a form of global tax and therefore the poor or 'developing' nations dont have to pay it back. In fact poor nations should expect way more money as tax by the rich nations and not as loans. The state of the world today is the result of a specific set of interlocking institutions: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. These institutions are designed to generate massive wealth for the few and poverty for the rest. The same people who make the decisions in government and corporation make the profit. They create a tight concentration of power. Together they are a form of anti-government whose only goal is profit. The IMF, through Structural Adjustment Programs, now directly runs the economies of over 70 countries. That means that about 1000 economists and bureaucrats control the economic policies for 1.4 billion people in these countries. That is a form of anti-government. The people that profit most from the global economy are white people. The people who are most oppressed by the global economy are people of colour. Racism and sexism have become the norm. The Global Community was looking for a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards, but there it was all along right on our eyes. The Earth Court of Justice will be asked to decide on the debt be changed into an actual tax to be paid by the rich nations to the poor nations, and to decide on the amount of tax to be paid. Developing nations will then be able to start rebuilding their communities as per the Scale of Global Rights. They will not have to satisfy the economic needs and wishes of the rich nations. The Earth Court of Justice will also be asked to rule illegal the activities of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO unless they become a part of a greater whole such as the Earth Ministry of Financial Institutions. These institutions will be controlled by the Global Community. Because governments of poor nations had to promote 'free trade', this situation cause barriers to trade to be eliminated and now we are seeing the globalization of 'free trade'. Poor nations are now asked to produce only the products they are good at producing and buy from other countries the products they are not as good at producing. This way the economy of a nation will function at maximum efficiency. So now governments are told to open up their borders and to stop meddling in markets, so that competition will be free internationally. Often what is called trade is really moving of resources across borders between subsidiaries of the same corporation. Nothing to do with free competition. Economic activity is centrally-managed and planned by the corporate elite. Capital move freely across borders as restrictions on the flow of money have been removed. Corporations can relocate their operations to the countries with the lowest wages, the least active unions and the lowest environmental standards. The reality is that more polluting industries are encouraged to relocate to poorer countries. A polluting industry tends to increase the chances that people in the surrounding area will have health problems. If pollution kills someone or makes them unable to work, the cost to the economy, or to the industry in the case of a law-suit, would be roughly equal to the projected wages that the person would have earned in the rest of their life. In a country with low life expectancy and low wages, this cost will be lessened. It costs less to dump a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country. The fate of global food production has now become one of the terrors of the future. Much of our current recessionary downturn has been caused by market speculation, from the oil and food sector all the way to the White House itself. For the last seven years, the Bush administration has placed climate crisis on the back burner in existential pursuit of resource wars and an "American way of life" that has turned from a dream of Hummers, housing and bling into a nightmare of price hikes, foreclosures and layoffs. Food riots are breaking out across the planet. We must re-examine corporate control of the food supply. The rise in global food prices has sparked a number of protests in recent weeks, highlighting the worsening epidemic of global hunger. The World Bank estimates world food prices have risen 80 percent over the last three years and that at least thirty-three countries face social unrest as a result. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned the growing global food crisis has reached emergency proportions. In recent weeks, food riots have also erupted in Haiti, Niger, Senegal, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. Protests have also flared in Morocco, Mauritania, Ivory Coast, Egypt, Mexico and Yemen. In most of West Africa, the price of food has risen by 50 percent -- in Sierra Leone, 300 percent. The World Food Program has issued a rare $500 million emergency appeal to deal with the growing crisis. Several causes factor into the global food price hike, many linked to human activity. These include human-driven climate change, the soaring cost of oil and a Western-led focus on biofuels that turns food into fuel. This is the brutal world of capitalist agriculture a world where some people destroy food because prices are too low, and others literally eat dirt because food prices are too high. We are in the midst of an unprecedented worldwide food price inflation that has driven prices to their highest levels in decades. The increases affect most kinds of food, but in particular the most important staples wheat, corn, and rice. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that between March 2007 and March 2008 prices of cereals increased 88%, oils and fats 106%, and dairy 48%. These increases are catastrophic for the 2.6 billion people around the world who live on less than US$2 a day and spend 60% to 80% of their incomes on food. Hundreds of millions cannot afford to eat. Food is not just another commodity, it is absolutely essential for human survival. Those most hit by shortage include the rural landless, pastoralists and the majority of small-scale farmers. But the impact is greatest on the urban poor. And the rises are producing what we are calling the "new face of hunger" -- people who suddenly can no longer afford the food they see on store shelves because prices have soared beyond their reach. The very least that humanity should expect from any government or social system is that it try to prevent starvation and above all that it not promote policies that deny food to hungry people. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was absolutely correct on April 24 when he described the food crisis as the greatest demonstration of the historical failure of the capitalist model. There are many factors contributing to this current crisis, including the rising price of oil, deregulated agricultural markets, financial speculation, and biofuels. Another key factor is climate change, which is affecting crop yield and food production. It is time for us to get serious about understanding the way climate change affects water resources for food production and conversely the way agricultural water use is leading to climate change. Agricultural practices geared towards growing export-oriented monoculture crops are chemical intensive and have resulted in high levels of pollution in local water systems. In addition, nitrogen used in fertilizers leaches into water courses increasing the indirect nitrous oxide emissions downstream. This model of production has intensified water use, both in terms of the water going into the growing of the commodities themselves, but also in terms of inter-basin water transfers. Protecting our waters in local watersheds and wetlands and using them judiciously in support of local agricultural systems and livelihood practices, rather than continuing with the current strategy of promoting export-oriented, monoculture, industrial, water-guzzling agricultural systems, is key to reducing the water sector's direct contributions to climate change. Moreover local practices that conserve and enhance local water availability to ensure resilience of rain-fed agricultural systems are necessary as an adaptation mechanism, to meet climate challenges and to help meet food security goals, two of the biggest challenges for developing countries today. It is time to reevaluate our agricultural policies that promote water and energy intensive agriculture. Doing so will help us cope with extreme changes in the hydrological cycle and resultant food and water crises many communities and nations are sure to face. Effective and sustainable water management in agriculture in support of healthy food systems needs to be part of the climate solution. We need to form a global ministry dealing only about agriculture, food production and the protection of our soils. All nations will be part of the ministry. We have to design systems of food production that meet our own needs, and also leave room for these other lifeforms we want to take along with us. Western agriculture is designed in the end to maximize profit. As a primordial human right, the prime concern of the human species is to feed people. Therefore we have to do things differently. We will have to produce less livestock as we effectively double the population we need to feed: ourselves, plus the livestock that is supposed to be feeding us. We also have to apportion the land surface of the whole world more efficiently, using some for highhly intensive food production (which makes use of less land), some for extensive agriculture (combining food production with wildlife conservation) and designing some specifically as wilderness areas with global corridors between them. The Global Community is now applying more emphasis on the urgent need from the people of all nations to give everyone essential services. [72] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] World Summit of the G20 nations and the new World Order The White House has been running a deficit of nearly a half trillion dollars for a long period of time, and has accumulated a nation debt of over 10 trillion dollars. Such state of affairs was actually that of a bankrupted nation. The high deficit was caused in large part by the huge military expenditures, the US war industry. Over a decade now, and in several press releases, the Global Community has made everyone aware of this critical situation, and how dangerous the US military and NATO allies were actually bringing the social fabric of the world to a complete breakdown. The October Press Release made that very clear [73] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] and has caused a domino effect that started with NATO not wanting to take the blame for the global crisis and forced the collapse of the financial bubbles in the stock market, the Wall Street financial crisis. Americans are too proud of their military to throw away the blame of their bankrupted economy, in large part onto their astronomically high military expenditures, which truly bankrupted America long before the financial crisis. The financial crisis reflected fundamentally bad financial principles. The global financial crisis has propelled the French Leader and EU Leader to go all around the world to orgainize a Summit this November, the Summit of all G8 nations, the most industrialized nations, and G20 nations, and 'fix' the crisis. The G20 (Group of 20) is a group consisting of 19 of the world's largest economies, together with the European Union. The G20 was formed as a new forum for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. It studies, reviews, and promotes discussion among key industrial and emerging market countries of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability, and seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization. The G5 group, India, China, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, could play a stabilising role, especially as it includes several of the worlds largest countries, each with huge poor populations. The Group of Eight major industrial nations (G8) were first to announce that they will hold a global summit in November to forge common action to prevent another economic meltdown. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said all European Union nations now backed radical restructuring of international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. He said that the Summit will lead toward "a new capitalism." Sarkozy said emerging economies such as China, India and others outside the G-8 - the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia - should also participate because "no one should feel excluded from what we are recasting." These leaders are interested in fixing their economies, not the global crisis. They are instrested in money, the stock market, not the people of the world, all life on Earth, the future of the next generations, or the environment. A money fix will not solve a problem. Money is used to deal with goods as an exchange between people, businesses and governments in the world. The problem is not money. The problem is the amount of goods being taken from the Earth, exchanged and consumed, and all the pollution associated with this process. The problem is the fundamentally wrong economic system created to allow these exchanges to occur for the benefit of a few rich people on the planet and at the expenses of an overpopulated world, the poor and the middle class people, 6.7 billion people, and at the expenses of all life on Earth, the environment, and the global life-support systems. A money fix is not the solution. They will also talk about NATO's future and how the organiztion can be used to rule the world under the leadership of the G8 nations. A fundamentally bad new world order. The main intergovernmental bodies including the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the World Trade Organizations (WTO), the European Union (EU), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have all endorsed the New World Order on behalf of their corporate sponsors. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America, is the official protector of the corporate sponsors. [74] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Governments in both developed and developing countries have abandoned their historical role of regulating key economic variables as well as ensuring a minimum livelihood for their people. They are no longer sustainable locally. The United Nations failed to make a sustainable development a priority in every community on the planet. We are dealing with a complex and centralized constellation of economic power in which the instruments of market manipulation have a direct bearing on the lives of billions of people. The prices of food, water, fuel are determined at the global level, beyond the reach of national government policy. The price hikes of these three essential commodities constitute an instrument of economic warfare, carried out through the free market. These hikes in the prices of food, water and fuel are contributing in a very real sense to eliminating the poor through starvation deaths. The sugar coated bullets of the free market kill our children. The act to kill is instrumented in a detached fashion through computer program trading on the commodity exchanges, where the global prices of rice, wheat and corn are decided upon. When the Global Community is confronted with the latest evidence of the startling growth of income and the ever increasing chasm of wealth inequality around the world, we need to recognize obscene social and economic arrangements for what they are and demand something different. Presently, there are nearly 500 billionaires worldwide whereas 2 billion live on a dollar a day or less. Tens of millions of children are locked out of school because their parents are unable to afford school fees. More than a million children die a year from diarrhea because their families lack access to clean drinking water. More than one billion people worldwide do not get essential health care. On average, developing countries have one doctor for every 6,000 people whereas industrialized countries have one for every 350 people. Under developed countries face a nightmare of almost no healthcare for their teeming masses. We live in a world where all natural and human resources are exploited mercilessly, so that a small minority can consume far more than their rightful share of the world's real wealth. Those at the helm, the big corporate rulers, are getting bail-outs in this financial crisis, not Main Street. Now, as we push the exploitation of the Earth social and environmental systems beyond their limits of tolerance, we face the reality that the industrial era faces a burnout, because it is exhausting the human and natural resource base on which our very lives depend. Living at the crossroads of this global crisis, we must hasten its passage, while assisting in the birth of a new civilization, the global civilization, based on life affirming rather than money affirming values. All over the world people are indeed waking up to the truth. We should strive and take steps to reclaim and rebuild our local economy. Be sustainable locally first, and globally next only if needed. Let go the WTO, NAFTA or any free trade agreement. It should also be our goal to create locally owned enterprises that sustainably harvest and process local resources to produce jobs, goods and services. Ideally our economy should be local; rooting power in the people and communities who realize their well being depends on the health and vitality of their local ecosystem. We should favor local firms and workers, who pay local taxes, live by local rules, respect and nurture the local ecosystems, compete fairly in local markets, and contribute to community life. Labour should not be taxed but pollution should. The exploitation and use of natural resources should also be taxed. A global economy empowers global corporations and financial institutions, local economies empower people. It is our consciousness, our ways of thinking and our sense of membership in a larger community, which should be global, the Global Community. Perhaps the most important fact of all, albeit forgotten, is that life is about living, not consuming. A life of material sufficiency can be filled with social, cultural, intellectual and spiritual abundance that place no burden on the planet. It is time to assume responsibility for creating a new future of just and sustainable societies free from the myth that competition, greed and mindless consumption are paths to individual and collective fulfillment. During the Summit, the G8 leaders will also talk about NATO's future and how the organiztion can be used to rule the world under the leadership of the G8 - G20 nations. A fundamentally bad new world order. The EU has operated in partnership and alliance with U.S. imperialism in military affairs and in international forums like the World Trade Organization. There are huge inflows of U.S. capital into Western Europe, and huge inflows of West European capital into the U.S. At the same time, the EU represents a major, and growing, competitive challenge to U.S. imperialism within an international framework dominated by the United States. How the EU challenge further develops will be influenced by the interplay of economic and non-economic factors: * There is the question of the evolution of NATO, the U.S.-led military alliance of which major EU countries are a part. * There is the dynamic element of the EUs relations with Russia and China, both of which are rising powers in the world economy and both of which are becoming ever more significant trading partners with the EU. * There are the wars for empire in the Middle East and in Afghanistan where West European imperialism is heavily involved with the U.S. and whose outcomes are far from determined. * There is a clash globally between an outmoded world-dominating and world-exploitative imperialism and an outmoded Islamic fundamentalism, which has thrived in response to the onslaughts of imperialism but which offers no real and liberating solution to imperialism. And within Europe reactionary Islamic fundamentalism is gaining ground and influence among sections of immigrants. * There are the effects of social struggles in Europe today and around the world, and the potential for revolutionary struggle to emerge and to impact the situation in the EU countries and the world as a whole. The EU may find itself torn between those within its imperialist ruling classes calling for a more robust European military capacity and those that still want to rely on the NATO alliance. The pathways towards a greater or lesser EU international geopolitical role would be profoundly influenced by a major move by China to wrench more initiative in the world economy and/or to forge closer alliance with Russia. In June 2008, the French government announced a reorientation of French security policy towards deeper relations with NATO. This was presented as a turn towards NATO and the EU along with bolstering the EUs capacity to plan and conduct its own military operations. Contradictions between France and Germany, core forces of the EU, and the U.S. over the war in Iraq have been very acute. And there have been other contradictions; for instance, a dispute broke out in 2005 when the EU lifted an arms embargo imposed on China after the 1989 Tiananmen uprising of students and workers. And even where there is more (apparent) unity, as in putting pressure on Iran, it is also the case that rivalries are playing out within the NATO alliance. The EU has necessity and freedom. The overall EU strategy seems to be one of biding time: promote further institutional integration within the EU bloc, seek out closer partnerships with other major powers, and take advantage of difficulties and setbacks of U.S. imperialism. But the pace, direction, and assertiveness of the EU will be influenced by underlying global trends and by unforeseen developmentsinternal and external to this bloc. Peak Oil and Gas Movement Welcome to the age of Peak Oil and Gas: as oil prices hit new highs and supplies sink, our way of life drastically changes. We are nearing the end of the Petroleum Age. Major investors are not likely to cough up the trillions of dollars needed to substantially boost production in the years ahead, suggesting that the global output of conventional petroleum will not reach the elevated levels needed for the global economy but has begun an irreversible decline. The use of military force will continue to protect the flow of imported petroleum. In Washington, that energy strategy has generally enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The current debacle in Iraq will not shake this consensus. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case: possibly fearful that the chaos in Iraq will spread to other countries in the Gulf region, senior figures in both parties are calling for a reinvigorated US military role in the protection of foreign energy deliveries. The US military presence in key producing areas and in the sea lanes that carry foreign oil to American shores will always be a priority by whoever is at the helm of the White House. The strategic stance adopted by President Bush in justifying his determination to retain a potent US force in Iraq has been passed on to the Democrates. We should expect an increase in the use of military force to protect the overseas flow of oil, as the threat level rises along with the need for new investment to avert even further reductions in global supplies. What happens when the energy supply stops growing, but the population continues to grow? More importantly, what happens when the energy supply begins to decline, as population continues to grow? Peak oil is not simply an issue of learning to conserve or finding ways to do more with less. It isn't simply about the possibility of economic collapse, war, starvation or global pandemic. It isn't just about changing our behaviors or our beliefs. It is about turning ourselves inside-out, and not only surviving the transformation, but also being and living equal and in harmony with all the rest. The new world order is now where energy governs what we eat, where we live, and if and when we travel. This new world order will be characterized by fierce international competition for dwindling stocks of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium, as well as by a tidal shift in power and wealth from energy-deficit states like China, Japan, and the United States to energy-surplus states like Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. In the process, the lives of everyone will be affected in one way or another; with poor and middle-class consumers in the energy-deficit states experiencing the harshest effects. That is most of us and our children. As a start to fixing our energy problem is to recognize what we have done wrong. For instance we need to revert the trend of using biofuel obtained from pood products. Biofuels, far from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, actually have a negative environmental footprint. A trade-off between fuel and food has taking place, and that the economically more attractive production of biofuels for the industrialised countries has crowded out food production for the poorest regions of the world. Increasing prices of food, and their scarcity, have recently sparked riots. Biofuels gained from extensive plantations of oil palms, soybean, rapeseeds and the like have a negative environmental footprint due to massive use of pesticides and fertilisers, which leads to acidification of groundwater. Problems with biofuels are numerous: deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, and an accelerated depletion of natural resources. Petroleum supplies are declining as demand increases. This unfolding trend will radically change human habitation on the Earth. Among the consequences will be the drastic reduction of food and fresh water available to people, not only in poorer parts of the globe, but throughout the planet. Industrial societies with their industrial agriculture are dependent upon fossil fuels such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal for many things, including transportation, electricity, and making plastics and other modern essentials. Oil is the main ingredient in conventional food. As the supply of petroleum and other fossil fuels decline Peak Water and Peak Food will follow. In recent months we have seen the return of food riots in the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa. Industrial societies run on electricity powered by the cheap energy of fossil fuels. As the supply of those energy sources decline and world-wide competition for them through wars and other means heighten, more electrical grids will fail, and with them access to both food and water. We need even more than food security; we need food sovereignty. Who controls your food? Growing at least part of one's own food, and having something to trade, will be essential to survival. Oil and natural gas depletion will soon begin to undermine the capacity of urban and metropolitan areas to sustain human life. Modern urban and metropolitan life depends on oil and natural gas for food production and distribution, residential heating, water purification and distribution, sanitation, and the power grid that delivers electricity for the pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, elevators, home heating controls, and automated building systems. As international food transport collapses, most oil rich nations face starvation too, regardless of how much oil they possess. Oil depletion means population decline for all urban areas. The notion that urban and suburban dwellers will relocate to small villages in agricultural regions is unrealistic. In the ensuing Peak Oil generated global economic depression, the value of urban residential properties will plummet. Increasing unemployment will slow new house sales and accelerate mortgage and property tax foreclosures. With more and more urban homes up for sale, their prices will decline sharply. And, as the price of urban property declines in value, rural property will increase in comparative value. At the same time, the cost of building new homes in rural areas will increase with the increasing cost of oil and natural gas. Building materials (asphalt and fiberglass shingles, cement, plastic and aluminum siding, fiberglass insulation, glass, lumber, and bricks) are either made from oil or they are manufactured with the energy of oil, natural gas, and coal. All building materials and construction workers are transported using oil (diesel and gasoline). Electricity that is used in the manufacture and construction of houses will also become more expensive. Coal (which is transported with diesel) and natural gas (which uses oil in exploration, drilling operations, and transport of workers) provide the energy for electric power generation. Thus coal and natural gas costs, as well as the cost of electricity, will increase with the increasing price of oil. Similarly, the construction of residential water (wells and pumps) and sanitation systems (septic systems or outhouses in rural areas) will cost more and more as the price of oil increases. Global crude oil production has already begun to decline, from 100 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 20%. The price of oil will skyrocket like never before. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always exceed the level of production; thus oil depletion will proceed at the same rate until all recoverable oil is extracted. Alternatives energies will not fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The proponents of the electric economy, the hydrogen economy, or an algal bio-diesel economy ignore the obvious. There is little capital, time, energy, or public will for such trillion dollar infrastructure makeovers. The belief in alternative energies is so strong that most scientists and politicians avoid examining obvious questions does the development of alternative energies consume more energy than they provide, and do alternative energies consume liquid fuels and give us electric power, which is not what we need? We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems. After the last power black out, the people living in rural areas will find that surviving will become increasing difficult without all of the goods from the outside (food, canning jars, fencing, roofing, hay, straw, seed, animal feed, plastic tarps, fertilizer, clothes, fabric, medicine, hardware, saws, wood stoves, etc.). The survivors will be the very few who live in areas with good rain and soil and who prepared intelligently for a life without oil. No nation can become a superpower without being rich because it is only the wealth that builds a mighty army, air force and navy and subsequently leads to the nation becoming an empire. That was the cases with Turkey, Great Britain, Germany, USSR, Spain, Belgium, Italy and Japan in the last century. They all sought gold, silver, copper, iron and precious jewellery to amass a wealth and also robbed weaker nations of their essential resources but like the mighty Romans, they too were defeated only to become a chapter in the history of empires. There is no dispute that it is about oil. It is oil and not gold, silver, copper, iron and precious jewellery that has now become the lifelines of all nations, including China, India and USA. These countries rank first as global consumers of the worlds oil production. Between them, they consume 40 million bbls crude oil per day or 40% of the global production. China was a net exporter of oil until 1993 and now, like the US, it is a net importer. Without oil, their industrial outputs would grind to a screeching halt. It is therefore natural that the source of the next conflict will be oil and the Middle East and the Indian Ocean as the fault lines between the nations of the east and the west. The US, India and China are seeking security of energy supply but they are doing so in different ways. China is also aspiring for energy security but, unlike the US which has the psyche of an empire, it is seeking security of supply through investments and not occupation. The goals for energy security are in reverse modes. The US has been transformed from democracy to a capitalistic oligarchy whereas China is moving from oligarchy to socialist capitalism. The US is an indebted nation whereas China is a lender nation. The Americans are becoming poorer, lavish and lazy because of a lack of incentives and ideology from their leadership. The Chinese, in contrast, are becoming richer, frugal and hard working because of incentives and a cultural ideology. China has been investing heavily in Irans energy to the tune of billions of dollars and also in Canada, Africa and Central Asian countries. Whereas China is seeking to protect shipments of oil, the US, in sharp contrast, is seeking plans to deny shipments of oil to China. These two divergent views will have to ultimately clash along the critical maritime flash points from the narrow Strait of Hormuz to the long and very narrow Strait of Malacca as the energy game speeds over the next 5 years. Protection of the global life-support systems and the environment There are many related aspects of the global life-support systems: [75] [cid:part4.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] * global warming * Ozone layer * wastes of all kind including nuclear and release of radiation * global pollution * climate change * species of the fauna and flora becoming extinct * losses of forest cover and of biological diversity * the capacity for photosynthesis * the water cycle * food production systems * genetic resources * chemicals produced for human use and not found in nature and, eventually, reaching the environment with impacts on Earth's waters, soils, air, and ecology * ship Captains and owners dumping waste oils in oceans * human activities of all kinds have disastrous impacts on the life-support systems: overfishing and bottom trawling, car and truck manufacturers using fossil fuels, etc. The environment and development are two big challenges facing human society in this century. The continuous degradation of the environment has directly affected the very survival and sustainable development of human beings. How to realise a more balanced development of economic growth and environmental protection has become a critical issue that requires the United States, China, India and the whole world to address urgently. Human consumption of the natural resources has been constantly increasing over the past four decades to result in a growing overshoot of what the Earth can sustainably supply. Sustainable development requires humans to manage their demands on natural resources strictly within the Earth's capacity to regenerate, which describes the concept of biological capacity. As greenhouse gas emissions are increasing every year, as more and more coal-powered generators are being built, as larger trucks are carrying goods over longer distances and as the population continues to increase, the Global Community is faced with an environmental crisis. This means the loss of most of the worlds best agricultural land to rising seas, the end of trade as docks and cities are flooded, and the displacement of billions of men, women and children. It means nuclear war and genocide, enormous suffering and the end of diversity in both human cultures and living creatures. It means the end of civilisation and a return to the most primitive way of life imaginable for the few thousand scattered survivors. It means that we will have long passed the point of no return, and that even if we do stop emitting more pollutants into the air we will have begun the unstoppable release of methane from permafrost and under-sea clathrates that will quite rapidly take the world to even higher temperatures at which little life will remain. We could end up like Mars or Venus. At the speed at which things are changing, this could happen in our lifetime. The "more is better" version of the American dream is unsustainable environmentally, fueling a level of resource consumption that the planet cannot keep up with. It is personally unsustainable, drawing families into a work-and-spend treadmill that depletes savings and clutters lives. And now we see it is unsustainable economically, as well. Wall Street crash has taken down Main Street and most world economies. Whatever economy emerges from this crisis will need to put less emphasis on "more" stuff and greater emphasis on more of what matters -- like healthy communities, a healthy planet and a higher quality of life. In righting the economic ship, the end game shouldn't be to plug up a broken vessel, but to move to something more seaworthy -- one that sails within both personal and ecological limits. Global warming is the highest threat to Earth security and is everyone's business. Terrorism was, and still is, a problem humanity needed to tackle head-on and resolve the best we could, but global warming is by far the greatest threat to security of all people on Earth and to life itself. We have never tackle the problem head-on. We played around the problem and its solution. We know the solution to the problem of global warming, we know what we need to do to make this generation and future generations safe and secure, but we just never do what we really have to do to resolve the problem. The biggest problem is that we are getting too proud about things that are completely unimportant and missing out on the things that are truly important. A place to start is to get acquainted with the Scale of Global Rights [76] [cid:part6.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] and with the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act [77] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] . The Global Community is asking North Americans and everyone else on Earth to tackle the problem head-on. We must solve the problem we have with global warming. Oil, gas and coal companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy your refine products. No! The end for you goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so! A two-degree Celsius rise in global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions could flip the Amazon forest from being the Earth's vital air conditioner to a flamethrower that cooks the planet. The trees of the Amazon contain at least 100 billion tonnes of carbon, 15 years worth of global emissions from all sources. It is not only essential for cooling the world's temperature but also such a large source of freshwater that it may be enough to influence some of the great ocean currents. It is in everyone's interest to keep the Amazon intact, but deforestation continues apace, driven by expanding cattle ranching, soy farming, conversion into sugar cane for biofuel and logging. This assault is drying out the forest, making it more vulnerable to burning. Rising global temperatures are also increasing evaporation rates, drying the forest further. Everything in the modern world is dependent on hydrocarbons. >From hydrocarbons we get fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, lubricants, plastic, paint, synthetic fabrics, asphalt, pharmaceuticals, and many other things. When oil goes, our entire industrial society will go with it. We must therefore look to primitive technology. On a broader scale, one could can say that modern industrial society is based on hydrocarbons, metals, and electricity. The three are intricately connected; each is only accessible if the other two are present. Electricity, for example, has been possible on a global scale only with hydrocarbons. The same is true of metals: most metals are now becoming rare, and the forms that remain can be processed only with modern machinery which requires hydrocarbons. There is no way of breaking that "triangle. What we are then looking at is a society far more primitive than the one to which we have been accustomed. Dangerous global pollution problems caused by enhanced methane (CH4) that leaks off the eastern Siberian coast (about 100 times the background level of about 1780 parts per billion CH4) and off Svalbard (Norway) have been overshadowed in the media by the collapse of the global credit bubble. At the root of both is a common thread, deregulation, including open-ended permits to pollute the atmosphere and the oceans, little-regulated financial systems and economic globalization, representing failure by governments to protect the life and welfare of their populations. For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 20052008 relative to the 19511980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years). The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 5002500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the worlds total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 23 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres. There is little evidence for a extinction at 3 Ma. However, by crossing above a CO2 level of 400 ppm the atmosphere is moving into uncharted territory. At this stage, enhanced methane leaks threaten climate events, such as the massive methane release and fauna extinction of55 million years ago, which was marked by rise of CO2 to near-1000 ppm. The $700 billion donated by the US Congress to save corrupt financial dealers are required for fast-tracked conversion from polluting to clean energy utilities and vehicles. The trillions of dollars spent since WWII on bombing peasant populations in their fields in the name of democracy and freedom are needed for replanting deforested regions of the Earth. In a time when the old world order is shattering, a global movement is emerging to challenge the use of war as a tool of statecraft. Cheap oil provided an energy subsidy that defined the wars, economies, settlements, values, and lifestyles of the 20th century. The result was a century of wasteful extravagance and inefficiency that encouraged us to squander virtually all Earth's resources -- including water, land, forests, fisheries, soils, minerals, and natural waste recycling capacity. We are now waking up to the morning-after consequences of a brief but raucous party. These include depleted natural systems, unsustainable economies, an obsolete physical infrastructure, and a six-fold increase in the human population dependent on the diminished resources of a finite planet. Cheap oil also fueled a zero sum global competition for access to resources -- particularly cheap oil -- and for the military superiority required to secure that access. The United States combined the global projection of military power with the global projection of economic and cultural power to achieve unchallenged global dominance as the sole reigning superpower. Cheap oil is no more and the global projection of military and economic power it made possible is no longer viable. To avoid driving Earth's system of climate regulation into irrevocable collapse, the Global Community must achieve at least an 80 percent reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050 and possibly sooner. Less noted is the corresponding imperative that to avoid irrevocable social collapse, we must simultaneously achieve an equitable allocation of allowable emissions to meet the essential needs of every person on the planet. This presents a particular challenge for the United States. As the world's leading producer of green house gases, our emissions reduction must be closer to 90 percent. There is no place in this equation for war or the global projection of military power. Beyond the fact that military planes, ships, and vehicles are gluttonous consumers of oil, the central activity of warfare is to kill and maim people and destroy critical infrastructure to impair capacity for normal life. The collateral damage includes massive scale toxic and radioactive environmental contamination that renders growing portions of our crowded planet uninhabitable. The more we humans war the more certain our ultimate collective demise. Crisis of freshwater, food, deforestation, and ocean health We are facing crises of freshwater, food, deforestation, and ocean health. We need leadership in the protection of all our natural resources. All of our natural resources are in peril because of what we do and what that does to our planet. We are facing a fresh water crisis. We are facing a food crisis. We are facing a crisis over deforestation. And we are facing crises in our oceans. While carbon emissions from fossil fuels pollute the air, so does a lot of other stuff. Now is the time to press for leadership in the protection of all our natural resources. We must increase our freshwater supply by about 20 percent by the year 2025 to meet world demand, and 90 cities still dump sewage into it. The price of most food has doubled over the past year, forcing millions deeper into poverty and malnourishment. There is now six times as much plastic as zooplankton in parts of the Pacific Ocean, and 90 percent of the big fish on Earth have disappeared. Meanwhile, we have an ever-increasing waste and electronic-waste burden on our hands. We each create twice as much trash per day as we did 40 years ago. The average size of our landfills has multiplied 25 times in that period as well. And our e-waste burden is so bad that we ship 80 percent of it overseas to countries with weak environmental standards. These countries in turn make products from our discards and ship them right back to us. (And we wonder how lead paint gets in toys.) As well, up to 40 percent of global wood production is from illegal timber operations. Deforestation not only displaces people and endangers species, it is the second biggest cause of climate change. (It isn't only fossil fuels that cause global warming.) To be sure, an alternative energy supply is needed and important. But let's not forget the importance of other environmental factors crucial to our health and well-being, not to mention the planet's. The forests have global implications not just on life but on the quality of it. Trees improve the quality of the air that species breath by trapping carbon and other particles produced by pollution. Trees determine rainfall and replenish the atmosphere. As more water gets put back in the atmosphere, clouds form and provide another way to block out the sun's heat. Trees are what cool and regulates the earth's climate in conjunction with other such valuable services as preventing erosion, landslides, and making the most infertile soil rich with life. The boreal forest is increasingly threatened by a range of resource extraction and other human activities. The boreal forest's role in global climate control is important. In fact, the Boreal Forests are just as important to the global ecosystem as the Tropical Forests and they should be given equal attention by all concerned with forestry and the environment. Locked up in the Boreal forests are vast amounts of carbon, and their biomass is so huge and so vital that when they are in their maximum growth phase during the northern spring and summer, the worldwide levels of carbon dioxide fall and the worldwide levels of oxygen rise. At the international level a number of environmental regimes, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, are evolving in ways that could potentially have a major influence on forest land development strategies of nations. At more local levels, decentralization is facilitating what is in some a cases, a return to more community-based rather than state-centered forms of forest management. The Global Community believes that to protect this ecosystem, industrial activity both inside and outside the boreal forest must be carefully regulated. Large reserves able to maintain their ecological integrity must be adequately set aside and thorough environmental assessments must be carried out before governments decide. Most of the world's rainforest has been severely impacted by human activities. Impacts are severe. Some are listed in Table below. Our current way of life is unsustainable. We are the first species that will have to self-consciously impose limits on ourselves if we are to survive. We will need ways of organizing ourselves to help us live in a world with less energy and fewer material goods. We all have to develop the skills needed to survive, and we will need to recover a deep sense of community that has disappeared from many of our lives. This means abandoning a sense of ourselves as consumption machines, which the contemporary culture promotes, and deepening our notions of what it means to be humans in search of meaning. We have to learn to tell different stories about our sense of self, our connection to others, and our place in nature. The stories we tell will matter, as will the skills we learn. Some people say it was a Magnitude 5.9 quake that hits off Indonesia. Be is there any proof of that? In the confusion of all, everyone believed what the media was saying. The media was being told information from governments but no one actually can prove it was an earquake that created the tsunami. No one truly knows for sure. There is now another theory. A submarine was testing the use of nuclear war heads by exploding them over the ocean bottom. Actually, it was not the first time that some nations have exploded nuclear war heads in the oceans. Our oceans have been hit several times. Exploding war heads in our oceans is at least as bad as a major oil spill. It is showing barbarism. It is killing the global communities of life in the oceans and destroying the delicate balance of our oceans physical, biological and chemical characteristics that can accelerate the climate change drastically when disturbed. It is showing ignorance and stupidity. In 2004, the war heads were more destrutive and were over the bottom of the ocean, and that scenario created a tsunami wave. Just a test, said the captain of the submarine that did it. Of course I have no proof of that. But then the only way you could prove it was truly an earthquake is by conducting an independent forensic investigation of the ocean bottom. So all we can say is that it is more likely that it was a powerful nuclear explosion that created the tsunami. That is the goal of the military, to test its armament and they did. But they were not going to admit it to the world. Gees! Not a good thing to admit that you just killed thousands of people and destroyed communities from several nations of the world. In today's planetary state of emergency, Global Law must be applied. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must pay for the independent investigation. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. Would you agree that there is now a planetary state of emergency and that a nation or an organization is guilty until found not guilty and that we should protect our oceans and all other global life-support systems by stopping those responsible and make them accountable? The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth by exploding nuclear bombs to melt glaciers and North Pole cap. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. In view of the planetary state of emergency, the Global Community says: for the protection of all life on Earth, a preventive principle is our only alternative. You are guilty until you can prove otherwise. Global Law must be applied. The United States must pay for the independent investigation. Would you agree? The US's biggest polluter isn't a corporation. It's the Pentagon. Every year the Department of Defense churns out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste -- more than the top three chemical companies combined. Yet the military remains largely exempt from compliance with most federal and state environmental laws, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pentagon's partner in crime, is working hard to keep it that way. For the past five decades the federal government, defense contractors and the chemical industry have joined forces to block public health protections against perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel that has been shown to effect children's growth and mental progress by disrupting the function of the thyroid gland which regulates brain development. Perchlorate has been leaking from literally hundreds of defense plants and military installations across the country. The EPA has reported that perchlorate is present in drinking and groundwater supplies in 35 states. Center for Disease Control and independent studies have also overwhelmingly shown that perchlorate is existent in our food supplies, cow's milk, and human breast milk. As a result virtually every American has some level of perchlorate in their body. Global governance and the 21st Century democracy Earth management and good governance is now a priority and a duty of every responsible person on Earth. The Global Community has taken action by calling the Divine Will into our lives and following its guidance. Divine Will is now a part of the Soul of Humanity to be used for the higher purpose of good and Life's evolution. We will learn to serve humanity and radiate the Will of God to others. We will establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and we promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Global governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government exists within the framework of an effective Global Community protecting common global values and humanity heritage. Global governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of global governance. Global governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society. Global governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of the Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states. The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any global community. Every community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Global Rights . On the other hand, representatives to the Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by the Global Community) that representatives to the Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form the Global Community. We can continue to believe our politicians as they echo messages of stability and order around our planet, and we can continue to feed off the BBC or the New York Times to get an insight into the normality of the global situation, but sooner or later, the collapse of our economies is going to affect us directly by hitting our pockets, and then perhaps we will be ready to act. Hopefully, against those politicians and global capitalists who are infecting our daily life by bringing a painful and miserable reality to the majority of humanity. We have not been smart enough as a collective of global citizens to understand that we are being taken on a ride, that affected groups are being kept isolated by the magic wand of the mainstream media regurgitating the propagandistic message of the ruling elite. Everyday, the global situation is getting worse. As strikes are on the rise and unemployment is increasing, we must be alert, we must understand what is happening. The elites will continue to keep us divided, because divided is how they can control us, but we must be smarter than them and understand that the only strength we have against their policies, is the collective strength of united discontent. When will we understand that our politicians are lying to us? Will we ever understand that the mainstream media is not democratic and that the police are there to defend the interests of the wealthy? One can see clearly whose interest the police serves when those who protest and strike have guns pointed at them. We must begin to pave the path to peace in order to gain global stability, and that must be done by setting measures to stop speculators from benefiting from the misery of others, by punishing corrupt politicians, and by collectively understanding that bankers are rich because we have placed our money in their hands. Ultimately, unless we begin to see the world as a whole, in which things are truly interconnected, our governments will continue their hostilities, in the long run oil prices will keep on rising, and when the time comes for us to complain, we will be faced with the guns of the police whom we have helped to create with the payment of our taxes. For the first time in human history, and the first time this millennium, humanity has proposed a benchmark: * the Global Movement to Help, and to serve the people of all nations, all life on Earth [78] The Global Movement to Help, and to serve the people of all nations, all life on Earth * the creation of the Planetary Biodiversity Zone [79] The creation of the Planetary Biodiversity Zone * formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives [80] formation of global ministries in all important aspects of our lives * getting ride of corruption at all levels of government [81] getting ride of corruption at all levels of government * formation of the Global Protection Agency (GPA)[82] formation of the Global Protection Agency (GPA) * the establishment of the Agency of Global Police (AGP) to fight against the growing threat to the security of all Peoples, and to fight against global crimes [83] the establishment of the Agency of Global Police (AGP) to fight against the growing threat to the security of all Peoples, and to fight against global crimes * the Scale of Global Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [84] the Scale of Global Rights as a replacement to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights * Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person belonging to 'a global community' and to 'the Global Community' [85] Statement of Rights, Responsibilities and Accountabilities of a person belonging to a global community and to the Global Community * an evolved global democracy based on the Scale of Global Rights and the Global Constitution [86] an evolved global democracy based on the Scale of Global Rights and the Global Constitution * a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) [87] a central organization for Earth management, the restoration of the planet and Earth governance: the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) * the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of governance and management of the Earth [88] the Earth Court of Justice to deal with all aspects of governance and management of the Earth * a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade [89] a new impetus given to the way of doing business and trade * more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all [90] more new, diversified (geographical, economical, political, social, business, religious) symbiotical relationships between nations, communities, businesses, for the good and well-being of all * proposal to reform the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMF, E.U., NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these organizations will be asked to pay a global tax to be administered by the Global Community [91] proposal to reform the United Nations, NATO, World Trade Organization, World Bank, IMF, E.U., NAFTA, FTAA, and to centralize them under Earth Government, and these organizations willbe asked to pay a global tax to be administered by Earth Government * the Peace Movement of the Global Community and shelving of the war industry from humanity [92] the Peace Movement of the Global Community and shelving of the war industry from humanity * a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, protection of human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects [93] a global regulatory framework for capitals and corporations that emphasizes global corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility,protection of human and Earth rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainableconsumption aspects * the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations [94] the ruling by the Earth Court of Justice of the abolishment of the debt of the poor or developing nations as it is really a form of global tax to be paid annually by the rich or industrialized nations to the developing nations * establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights [95] establishing freshwater and clean air as primordial human rights * Global Justice Movement for all Life [96] Global Justice Movement for all Life * Movement for taxation on all Earth natural resources [97] Movement for taxation on all Earth natural resources * the creation of the Federation of Global Governments [98] The creation of the Federation of Global Governments The power of Global Community was de-centralized to give each Global Government (GG) [99] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation. The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. Another important aspect of global governance is the security of a person and of a nation. Security must be achieved by other means than conflicts and wars. We might as well shelved the war industry from humanity right now and that means phasing out all nuclear, biological, chemical weapons right now. Governments that have weapons of masss destruction (WMDs) are all terrorist governments. I am asking them to disarm. No waiting! That also means having inspectors verifying the phasing out in all nations of the world, and not just in some Middle East country. The nature of global security has changed since the rise of the Global Community organization. Security used to be about the protection of the state and its boundaries, people, institutions and values from an outside threat. The Global Community will emphasize as a priority the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. Today the security of people within the Global Community is just as important as the security of states. Citizens must be secure. Security is a primordial human and Earth right. The Global Community has broadened the traditional focus of the security of nations to include both the security of people as well as that of the planet. Global security policies include: * every person on Earth has a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights * prevention of conflicts and wars; identification, anticipation, and resolving conflicts before they become armed confrontations. The Earth Court of Justice will help here. * military force is not a legitimate political instrument * weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence * eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from all nations and have inspectors verifying progress to that effect * all nations should sign and ratify the conventions to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons * the production and trade in arms should be listed as a criminal act against humanity; this global ministry will introduce a Convention on the curtailment of the arms trade, a provision for a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of the financing or subsidy of arms exports by governments * the development of military capabilities is a potential threat to the security of people and all life on Earth; the ministry will make the demilitarization of global politics a high priority. * anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts and wars * maintaining the integrity of the environment and global life-support systems * managing the environmental, economic, social, political and military conditions that threatened the security of people and the planet Today the watchdog, the 'enforcer' for 'free trade', and also the bedfellow of both the IMF and the World Bank, is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO is responsible for monitoring national trading policies, handling trade disputes, and enforcing the GATT agreements. The World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) encourage the privatization of public services and the settling of international disputes their own way. Any government, acting on behalf of a corporation, can challenge the acts of another government if they "interfere with trade." Complaints are taken to a WTO dispute resolution body which then make a binding decision. The WTO has forced governments to lower their labour and environmental standards in favour of a corporation to allow more pollution into the environment, and that is a form of anti-government gone bad with absolute no respect or care for life and the global-life support systems. Corporations can sue governments if they harm their profits through any unfair barriers to trade. NAFTA and WTO tribunals usually rule in favor of corporations. So now we really have a new definition for the word 'property' to mean both what is currently owned and profits that could potentially be made. To compensate, we propose a new definition for 'pollution' and 'human destruction' to mean the pollution and human destruction that the policies of the IMF, World Bank and WTO are causing now in the world plus the pollution and human destruction that they will cause in the future to the next generations. By providing corporations with a mean to override governmental decisions, NAFTA and the WTO (and the proposed FTAA) shift power even more into the hands of the elite. And that is also a form of anti-government. The global economy can be affected by the deregulation in the movement of capital and thus by speculation. Money is made off tiny fluctuations in the relative prices of currencies. Speculation makes it possible for huge amounts of money to be transferred half-way around the world in a matter of seconds. Whereas world trade associated with actual goods and services is estimated at $7 trillion a year, speculation is estimated at $1.5 trillion a day. If a country's economy starts to slow, billions of dollars can be transferred out of the country instantaneously, which can significantly affect its economy and the people. This has been the case in 1997 of a number of East Asia countries. They were bankrupted by speculation. The people were enormously affected for the worst. Speculation can exert tremendous pressure on the internal politics of a country. It can bankrupt a country's economy. Speculation should be de-institutionalized. Humanity has no real need for speculation, and it does way more harm than good. Rich countries manipulate trade agreements in order to ensure profitability. Their governments insist on tariffs and protectionism in areas in which they are weak. For instance, Canada and the USA are now going through the process of an economic war in the softwood industry. The imposition of a 29 percent tariff on softwood lumber by the U.S. Commerce Department shows that Canadians were duped by the Free Trade Agreement(FTA) and NAFTA. The U.S. Government protectionism is itself aimed at reducing the value of the Canadian companies just long enough for American competitors to acquire them. Many Canadian industries have already been bought by US competitors. The energy sector is one of them. Free trade opens up a developing nation's economy to competition with strong, developed, well-financed, multinational corporations. In consequence, most of the local producers and manufacturers go out of business thus leaving a developing nation's economy entirely in the hands of the transnational elite. It is a form of colonization and of world anti-government. Rich countries force poorer countries to open up their markets, and then take them over. Most of Canada's large corporations have been bought out in this way by the US and other foreigners. We have seen a gradual lost of Canada's sovereignty because of 'Free Trade' and the signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement. How can this be happening?! We have shown in this report that Americans were bankrupted long before the Wall Street crash. Ant yet American corporations have been buying Canadian corporations with money they dont even have. All on paper! The Canadian energy sector has been a major target of American buyers. Over time Canadian corporations were created to supply oil and gas to the US, especially California. Pipelines were built throughout Canada and now feed US customers. Now that Americans own those Canadian corporations, the cost of selling the petroleum products to US customers have been lower than what Canadians actually pay for them. No income tax are paid by the US corporations on Canadian land. Basically, Canadian natural resources are being 'legally' stolen from Canada at no cost to Americans (bankrupted money) and no tax to be paid. American corporations have the full legal protection of the WTO and NAFTA agreements. What is even worse is that the cost of security for sending the petroleum products to the US, by now US own corporations, is dumped onto Canadian taxpayers, not on the oil and gas, and pipeline corporations. How fair is that?! How is that possible?! How can we let that happened?! First American corporations buy Canadians corporations with money they dont own, bankrupted money. Then they carry Canadian natural resources through pipelines also built by Canadians taxpayers. They pay no taxes. And Canadian taxpayers are responsible of security for the transportation of the petroleum products to the US customers. Canadians are not getting a fair exchange of natural resources for fake money. They call that ' free trade '. Canadian environmental standards have to be lowered from beginning to end, from the exploration phase to deveopment and transportation of the resources to the US costumers in favour of corporations that allow more pollution into the environment. Gee!!! What world are we living in?! It is the US invading Canada, legally. The US has invaded economically and militarily the Middle East in almost the same way but much worst. With the difference that the US and its military trojan horse, Israel, have caused the Iran-Iraq war, sold arms to both sides, bomb Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, put in place friendly governments and draw their constitution to allow this ' legal ' thievery of Middle East natural resources to the US big corporations. The American middle class never got a penny unless they actually, directly or indirectly, worked for the US war industry (an estimated 100 million Americans). The White House expects NATO allies to come and spend tax dollars in a war they have created to gain control over the Middle East oil and gas. They want Canadian people to be bankrupted thenselves in a war that made big American corporations rich and the American middle class poor. Big US corporations are controlling the oil and gas of Iraq and making sweet deals with the other Middle East nations. Ever since WWII the big corporate rulers of the G8 nations have applied the same scenario all over the world and even using the IMF and World Bank organizations. Americans are the sponsors of those organizations, again with money they dont own, paper money, bankrupted money. Through these organizations, the White House subsidizes friendly governments who help American corporations get whatever natural resources they want often at the expenses of labour rights and the environment. The World Bank is turning dirty carbon credits into gold. Surely that is not a real solution to the global climate crisis. But this is not surprising since the sponsors of the Bank is the US Government which itself nominates the leading body of the Bank. And we all know the USA have the worst environmental record on the planet. The World Bank's long-running identity crisis is proving hard to shake. When efforts to rebrand itself as a "knowledge bank" didn't work, it devised a new identity as a "Green Bank." The reality is that the Bank continues to finance fossil fuel projects globally. The World Bank has seized upon the immense challenges climate change poses to humanity and is now front and center in the complicated, international world of carbon finance. It can turn the dirtiest carbon credits into gold. First the Bank finances a fossil fuel project, involving oil, natural gas, or coal, in a developing nation, call it 'Nation A'. A rich nation, call it 'Nation B' asks the Bank to help arrange carbon credits so Nation B can tell its carbon counters it's taking serious action on climate change. The World Bank kindly obliges, offering carbon credits for a price far lower than Nation B would have to pay if Nation B made those cuts at home. Nation A gets a share of the cash to invest in equipment to make fossil fuel project slightly more efficient, the World Bank takes its 13 percent cut. Look no further than the World Bank to see how many economic, social and environmental problems so-called experts can make worse. Remember the World Bank, that global "development" institution based in Washington, D.C., that dispenses billions of dollars a year to poorer nations with the declared intent of ending global poverty? The Global Community spent decades protesting the World Bank's projects and policies that exacerbated economic, social and environmental problems. In the United States, thousands of protesters took to the streets in the years prior to 9/11 to condemn the financial behemoth. Across the Third World, where the impacts of World Bank lending are felt on the ground every day, such protests began even earlier. Today, during the World Bank and International Monetary Fund's annual meetings in Washington, D.C., it was announced that critics like the Global Comunity were so wrong and that we should look to the World Bank to play a key role in solving the world's food, climate, poverty and other crises. Were we indeed wrong? Could millions of our allies in developing countries, including so-called beneficiaries of the development mega-agency, have possibly been so wrong? Is it a time for a mea culpa? Having taken a close look at the World Bank past and present history, we are certainly not wrong. Over the past decades the Bank has invested roughly 100 times more in fossil fuel energy projects than in clean energy. Tens of billions of dollars of dirty energy lending. The reality is that the Bank has demonstrated its ability to contribute to climate chaos. Over the course of its history, the World Bank has been all about "selective globalization." For example, over the past two decades, the economic free-market model it pushed on its borrowing countries has added the total number of billionaires in the world from around 100 to 1,125, with a far more selective group of countries being home to the billionaires today. The number of people now living in poverty today is actually much higher than the Bank's prior calculations asserted. In other words, "selective globalization" has helped create a larger, more selective class of poor people. The World Bank has loaned tens of billions of dollars to Africa since the Bank set up shop right after World War II? The fact is that poverty and inequality have risen in most African countries over that same period. For example, the case of Malawi, where the government explicitly rejected the World Bank's advice on how to deal with a crisis in domestic corn production that threatened widespread famine. The result of ignoring the Bank's expertise? By late 2007, Malawi was not only feeding its own population, but also exporting corn. The Bank's preferred solution to climate change is to get governments out of the picture and let the invisible hand of "carbon markets" prevail. The Bank has devised a way to make hundreds of millions of dollars off carbon markets by charging a hefty commission on trades. Or take the food crisis. By pressing countries to follow a set of policies geared to shift farmers from subsistence food crops (rice and corn, for instance, that the grower could eat) to export crops (cut flowers, ornamental plants, gourmet veggies -- that either can't be eaten or aren't meant for local stomachs), the Bank has created a "freer" global market for farm products grown largely by or for big agribusiness companies. Southern countries get to be more vulnerable to and dependent upon the whims of an unfair and volatile global market. And, now there's a role for governments to play in quelling the ensuing "food riots." Who could better grasp the challenges faced by people who make less than $2 a day than people who make hundreds of dollars a day, often tax-free? Who could better understand the needs of poor people than experts who zip in and out of poorer countries and stay in five-star hotels? And, as for those World Bank staff who do live in-country, who could better comprehend the realities of the average poor person there than Bank staff who typically live in mansions with chauffeurs and gardeners? As money lenders, the World Bank and the IMF have enormous power and shape the conditions of peopleslives around the world. That power has been used to create a global economy friendly to the interests of the wealthy and multinational corporations, the big corporfate rulers of the world, but devastating to the lives of hundreds of millions of impoverished people. The IMF and World Bank, with the structural adjustment programs (SAPs) they impose on indebted countries and their pro-corporate development projects, are the leading edge of oppressive globalization. The policies they have imposed in Africa, Latin America, and Asia have condemned people to stagnation, poverty, and death for twenty years, and those policies are now being adopted in the countries of Europe and North America too. IMF policies require governments to cut food price subsidies, restrict credit to farmers, and divert prime farmland to non-food export crops such as tobacco, coffee, and cotton in order to provide cheap bulk commodities to Western consumers. The victimized nations must then import wheat, rice, and other food products from outside. But prices for these food staples depend on world markets which they cannot influence, much less control. During this global financial crisis the whole world is going through, developing nations were first affected and lost all hope. The rich nations bailed out their big corporate rulers. But rich nations were the ones that created the financial crisis, all with money they did have not in the first place, paper money, bankrupted money. That caused the Wall Street crash and affected the economies of the developing nations in the worst way. The World Bank has been getting money from the US Government and yet this Government has been bankrupted for decades. It would be only fair to forgive all loans of the developing nations. Military intervention in the affairs of other nations is wrong. There are other ways, there are peaceful ways, ways that are not based on profit-making and the gain of power for itself. The invasion of nations such as those of the Middle East and Afghanistan are crimes against humanity and will be prosecuted. War is the greatest violation of human and Earth rights that one people can inflict on another. The U.S.-controlled North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has lost its purpose to continue as a defence alliance. However, its aggressive expansion is endangering world peace and the survival of life on the planet. Despite its irrelevant role, NATO has become part of the U.S. military. Instead of dismantling the once defence alliance, the U.S. pushed to enlarge NATO and expand its boundaries. The U.S. has lured most European nations, including former Warsaw Pact members, the so-called New Europe, to join its military. Poland, Hungry and the Czech Republic joined in 1999; Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuanian, Estonia, Slovakia and Romania in 2004, others are waiting in line. Becoming a NATO member proves to be a profit bonanza for U.S.-Israeli weapon industries and arm dealers. All new recruits into NATO are obliged to increase their defence budgets to modernise and enlarge their military arsenals at the expense of vital public services. It is important to remember in mind that the U.S.-NATO demands for expansion have met with opposition from Russia, China with a legitimate concern against unprovoked threat and nations such as Germany, the Netherlands and France. Almost all new mini-dictators supported the illegal U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people. They are in complete complicity in the war crimes committed by the regime of George Bush despite overwhelming majority of their citizens opposition to U.S. aggression. >From the criminal U.S. aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the ongoing murderous occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the new European armies have become U.S. foot soldiers serving U.S. imperialist interests. Planning, organizing and using crisis in Europe and elsewhere, the U.S. cancelled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in order to locate ABMs and to lure more nations to sign up for the system, including Australia, South Korea and Japan. Under the false pretext of defence against rogue states, the U.S. has just signed a agreement with Poland to station on Polish soil U.S. interceptor missiles. The provocative deal is seen by Russians as a dangerous opportunity for the U.S. to expand its military presence and threat across the world. Poland hailed the deal as a counter to Russian threat. Of course Poland is fully aware that the missiles are against Russia not Iran, as the U.S. continues to mislead the public. After Poland, the U.S. is planning to build a twin anti-missile radar system in the Czech Republic. Many Poles as well as Czechs are against the deals and rightly believe their countries are becoming vassal states of a dangerous U.S. militarism. Ever since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. aim has always been a quest for imperialist domination of the globe through U.S. militarism, including the establishment of 737 U.S. military bases in strategic areas of the world. The U.S. policy of destabilising Russia and undermining Russias integration with Europe is aimed at controlling Eurasias natural resources . The events of 9/11 provided the U.S. with a pretext to justify the U.S. war on Islam and a global imperialist expansion. It is hard to believe that the recent unprovoked aggression by Georgias President Mikheil Saakashvili against the semi-independent district of South Ossetia wasnt engineered by the U.S. ruling class in Washington. Russia has a legitimate right to protect its citizens. Most Ossetians are Russian citizens and do not want to be dominated by a racist Georgia. Russias response to Saakachvilis aggression was swift and in full compliance with international laws. Saakashvilis army of mercenaries trained and armed by the U.S. and Israel has suffered a deserving humiliating defeat that should be a lesson to all those new European vassals who think they can participate in U.S. war crimes and count on U.S. help. The U.S. ruling class, the Bush regime in particular, has no moral standing whatsoever to criticize Russia for protecting Russian nationals and defending South Ossetia against unprovoked aggression. After more than five years of murderous Occupation, the Bush regime is directly responsible for the premeditated killing of more than 1.3 million innocent Iraqi civilians. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are imprisoned and tortured on regular basis, and at leas 5 million Iraqis have been displaced as refugees living in appalling conditions. The entire sovereign nation of Iraq is destroyed in a premeditated act of aggression justified by outright lies. Moreover, despite the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi peoples opposition to the Occupation, the Bush regime refused to withdraw U.S. troops and mercenaries from Iraq and end the murderous Occupation of their nation. It is obvious that Western governments and their mainstream media are demonising Russia even if Russia is not the aggressor. As Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister told the media: NATO is trying to make a victim of an aggressor and whitewash a criminal regime - save a collapsing regime - and is taking a path to the rearmament of the current leaders in Georgia. Saakashvili as perpetrator of war crimes has become the victime by embarking on an ill-advised act of aggression not dissimilar from U.S. recent acts of aggression. World peace is greatly served by multilateralism and international institutions without an aggressive U.S. military expansion. The transformation of NATO into a tool of U.S. imperialism is endangering the survival of the planet. [cid:part16.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ( see enlargement [100] NATO (the White House, war industry, big corporate rulers, Christian right) vs Global Rights and Global Justice ) An amoral and decadent NATO Artwork by Germain Dufour September 11, 2008 We, Global Citizens, [101] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] therefore affirm the following recommendations: 1. That the US and its coalition partners immediately cease all violations of the civil, political and human rights of the people of Iraq; 2. That the military occupation of Iraq be immediately ended; 3. That all parties guilty of war crimes against the Iraqi people be brought to justice under Global Law; the Earth Court of Justice will prosecute the offenders; 4. That reparations be paid by all responsible parties to the people of Iraq for the damages caused by both the war and the occupation; the amount to be paid should be no less than 8 trillion US dollars coming from the governments involved, and not from the resources of Iraq; 5. That we work to strengthen the mobilization of the global antiwar movement; 6. That the occupation of Palestine, Afghanistan and all other colonized areas is illegal and should be brought to an end immediately; 7. That our military be coming back home as this is the place it is needed most to prepare for Canada's future; 8. That the military be used for peace-keeping mission and not war-like stand; 9. That the military be used for the protection of the global-life support systems. 10. That tax money not be used on the military, instead, tax money be used to prepare for the future: research and development on new ways to replace oil and gas, and plastics; alternative energy technologies be used now; the development of new technologies and conservation strategies is essential both to reduce pollution; 11. That our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol be made a real commitment, with real tangible, meaningful actions. Status quo is not an option! It was never an option. Those who dont do anything about the global warming of the planet are criminals. Those who dont help protecting the global life-support systems are criminals of the worst kind, they are 'terrorists' threatening all life on the planet. The Global Community is very concerned about the state of the world today and the causes that brought up so much frictions and wars between nations. The world has seen the rise of an invading world power, the USA, ever since WWII. The United Nations has never done anything to stop the invasion. The United Nations (UN) leadership has been one of a 'watcher', an observer. The UN watch the world go by, on the brink of self-destruction and of being invaded, environmentally and militarily, and you do nothing. When has the UN ever taken side of those nations being invaded? The UN never did! When has the UN ever stood up for the principles in the UN Charter and stopped the invaders, and at least enforced hard sanctions against the invaders? The UN never did! The UN has been a watcher, an observer, a non-participant. And that is a crime against humanity. Has the UN ever understood any of the above issues? The UN has been watching the world self-destroying itself, and being invaded by the USA, and the UN never did anything significant to help humanity and all life on the planet. The UN leadership has pratically been non-existent and many times counter-productive. The UN should never be promoting war as a solution to world problems. That alone is against global sustainability. Sustainability means no war. War is the greatest act of destruction. There is no worst action than war. The UN is promoting a culture of violence and war, and certainly that goes against Global Sustainability and Global Peace. That is the worst thing the UN could ever to humanity. It is totally opposite to the Global Vision that the Global Community is promoting. And it is totally insane! You are following into the steps of the USA. You are followers of the greatest of all evils: war and the war industry. The North Korea crisis is another example of UN lack of leadership. Everyone saw the problem coming from the time President Bush insulted: Kim Jong-il, the leader of Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remember the now famous 'axe of evil' expression?! The UN knew America was invading the Middle East. Why has the UN not enforced hard sanctions against the USA for its bullying tactics at the UN to get what it wants? The UN leadership could have avoided the situation we have today. The UN did nothing at a critical time. The UN watched things happening. The UN is the organization where bullying takes place by those with nuclear war heads. The world is threatened by nuclear war heads. The five permanents members of the UN are allowed to bully any other nations. The USA is invading the world, and the UN can do nothing to stop them. The USA is allowed to invade other nations, chamge their governments, and has often made lies in speeches to the UN, to the world. Remember what the US representatives told the world at the UN prior to the invasion of Iraq? Lies! All lies! And the UN never did anything to reprimand the US representatives and implement hard sanctions for the invasion of Iraq. All weapons of mass destruction should have been phased out a long time ago. Why are the USA still holding the world hostage with its 40,000 nuclear war heads, and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction? What have you ever done to help the phasing out of WMDs? Now several nations, including North Korea and Iran feel threatened just like everyone else and will refuse to be invaded. They would rather take on the US. Russia and China will also refuse to be invaded. What have done to phase out WMDs? Nothing! The UN has done nothing! CAPTION: Declared nuclear weapons states Country Warheads active/total Year of first test UN permanent member [cid:part17.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] United States 40,000 1945 yes [cid:part18.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Russia 10,000 1949 yes [cid:part19.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] United Kingdom <200 1952 yes [cid:part20.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] France 350 1960 yes [cid:part21.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] People's Republic of China 130 1964 yes [cid:part22.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] India 75-115 1974 no [cid:part23.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Pakistan 65-90 1998 no Undeclared nuclear weapons states [cid:part24.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Israel 75-200 none or 1979 no This is a list of states with nuclear weapons. There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. They were given to Israel by the United States. Israel was considered the Trojan Horse of the USA for the invasion of the Middle East and surrounding nations, including North Korea and China. Back in 1947, the creation of the State of Israel was a strategic military move by the USA military aiming at the invasion of the Middle East and securing for themselves the oil and gas reserves in the region. None of these four countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran has been developing uranium enrichment technology and stands accused by the United Nations of doing so for weapons purposes. Iran insists that its intentions are limited to domestic nuclear power generation. As of February 4, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran to the United Nations Security Council in response to concerns on their possible nuclear programs. On the table above is a list of nations that have admitted the possession of nuclear weapons, the approximate number of warheads under their control in 2002, and the year they tested their first weapon. This list is informally known in global politics as the "Nuclear Club". These figures are estimates, in some cases quite unreliable estimates. Also, these figures represent total warheads possessed, rather than deployed. In particular, under the SORT treaty thousands of Russian and U.S. nuclear warheads are in inactive stockpiles awaiting processing. The radioactive material contained in the warheads can then be recycled for use in nuclear reactors that drive nuclear power plants and some military submarines and warships. From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 55,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed. Certainly we ought to disarm all nations from all weapons of mass destruction. The leadership of the United Nations has failed to enforce disarmement. It is a tragedy that such a failure is now seen as the source of other nations, such as North Korea, Iran and others, wanting to defend themselves against an invasion by the USA. Humanity is going through a phase of global consciousness. We see entire nations making choices based on what is good for themselves, today self-interests, versus what is good for the next generations and all life on the planet. In other words, they make choices between global politics versus international politics. International politics are driven by national interests, self-interests, while Global politics are about the survival of all of us of the planet, all life. Global politics have never been handled for the view of what is best to humanity. If and when we did, we did something of no consequences. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and subsequently the Human Rights Charters of many nations, were good examples of failures to humanity. We developed rights and gave them equal importance. Nothing we can apply to any real situations. Nothing real! No where in Nature do we ever observe rights of equal importance. We, human beings, invented the Declaration and now much of our future is dependent on it. Global politics is about doing what is right for all of us now and in the future, and for all life on the planet. We base our understandings and actions on principles we all know are rights deep down. You cannot have a nation invading another nation for its resources? its water? its oil and gas? We have chaos without principles! We have conflicts and wars. There are ways of doing things that will give everyone a good survival chance. There are global equitable and sustainable solutions. War goes against global sustainability and global peace. Global politics are meant to guide us on the right path. They are meant to bring humanity on a safe ground. They are about the survival of all of us of the planet. This is what people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules want from their political leaders. You don't expect politicians to be perfect. But you do want to know that your tax dollars - money you've worked for - are being spent properly and wisely. The 'Peoples' have been let down. How many time have we heard of corruption at the United Nations: remember the ' oil for food program', and now american corporations are making billions of dollars "rebuilding Iraq" or is it destroying Iraq to have the contracts of rebuilding it. There is so much corruption that it stinks to the Moon. Many other organizations are corrupted and have no intention of changing their ethics rules: * G8 nations, * World Trade Organization (WTO), * Free Trade Agreement (FTA), * North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), * Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), * World Bank, * International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the * European Union (EU). Most dont even have ethics. If they do they dont follow them. The problem is the system they have created. It has become clear that this culture of waste, mismanagement and corruption cannot reform itself. The Global Community leads by example. We will fix the system rather than defend its beneficiaries. The Global Community has created a process of fixing the system by legislating and enforcing the [102]Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act a specific, detailed and credible plan to clean up bad global governance in the world. The U.N. is bad governance. Accountable government is what humanity needs. The Global Community deserves nothing less. This very important legislation, the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act which has now been approved by Global Parliament, define rights, responsibility and accountability of all global citizens. Each and everyone of us make decisions, deal with one another, and basically conduct our actions as per the Act. (read Press Release Feb. 26, 2006 [103] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ). The U.N. leadership and all its related organizations have failed humanity and all life on Earth on many levels: 1. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be replaced by the Scale of Global Rights; [104] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] 2. corruption, mismanagement at the highest levels, and bad global governance; 3. promotion of the military option, war; 4. allowing the genocides of several peoples; 5. the business of deceiving, making believe, controlling without a democratic mandate from the Global Community; 6. the U.N. is operating using precepts dating back 2000 years and developed by the Roman Empire; those precepts best suit the invasion of nations and the destruction of the global life-support systems and the Earth environment; 7. the absence of proper governance and justice at the U.N.; 8. the use of trickery to deceive the world and subdue nations; and 9. conflicts and wars in the world are created by the USA and nothing is done to stop the invasion, no sanctions. Seeing such a mess, the Global Community had no other choice than to research and develop the Global Constitution, [105] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] and to enforce Global Law. [106] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The Global Community had no other choice than to research and develop a proper system of governance for all of humanity. Global Protection Agency (GPA) and global leadership Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) will train and lead a global police force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. This is a great opportunity for multilateralism. The GPA is a leading organization who participate in: a) peacekeeping or peacemaking mission; b) creating global ministries for: [107] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] 1. the policy response to the consequences of the global warming, and 2. the development of strategies to adapt to the consequences of the unavoidable climate change. [108] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] c) enforcing global law; [109] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] d) saving the Earth's genetic heritage; e) keeping the world healthy and at peace; f) protecting the global life-support systems and the eco-systems of the planet; g) dealing with the impacts of: global poverty, lack of drinking water and food, global warming and the global climate change, threat to security, conflicts and wars, lack of good quality soil for agriculture, polluted air, water and land, overcrownded cities, more new and old diseases out of control, widespread drugs, human and Earth rights abuses, world overpopulation, and lack of resources; h) broadening the traditional focus of the security of states to include both the security of people as well as that of the planet. Global security policies include: * every person on Earth has a right to a secure existence, and all states have an obligation to protect those rights * prevention of conflicts and wars; identification, anticipation, and resolving conflicts before they become armed confrontations. The Earth Court of Justice will help here. * military force is not a legitimate political instrument * weapons of mass destruction are not legitimate instruments of national defence * eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from all nations and have inspectors verifying progress to that effect * all nations should sign and ratify the conventions to eliminate nuclear, chemical and biological weapons * the production and trade in arms should be listed as a criminal act against humanity; this global ministry will introduce a Convention on the curtailment of the arms trade, a provision for a mandatory Arms Register and the prohibition of the financing or subsidy of arms exports by governments * the development of military capabilities is a potential threat to the security of people and all life on Earth; the ministry will make the demilitarization of global politics a high priority. * anticipating and managing crises before they escalate into armed conflicts and wars * maintaining the integrity of the environment and global life-support systems * managing the environmental, economic, social, political and military conditions that threatened the security of people and all life on the planet * over the past decades and even now today, all Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council (mostly the United States, Russia and Britain) were responsible for selling weapons and war equipment. These three nations are required to give back to the Global Community an amount of 8 trillion dollars (American) as a payment for the immense damage they have caused in the world. They have created a culture of violence throughout the world. They are nation bullies, nation predators. They are responsible for economic mismanagement, ethnic tensions, crimes, drug abuse, high unemployment, urban stress, worldwide poverty, and pressures on natural resources. Most conflicts in the world are direct legacies of cold war power politics, senseless politics. Other conflicts were caused by the end of the cold war and the collapse of old regimes. Other factors have combined to increase tension: religious, economical, political, and ethnic aspects. The dollar fine is to be administered by Global Parliament. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) provides leadership for training of other countries' citizens who would like to participate in peacekeeping and Earth security [110] [cid:part4.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ... so that we have a ready cadre of people who are trained and equipped and organised and have communications that they can work with each other. As well, there are questions about how many nations would sign up if such a force were under the control of the Global Community. To act as a global protection force, as the GPA aspires to do, many foundations must be laid, especially regarding the move from wielding power derived from the Global Community to legitimate global leadership. There are many required characteristics that are prerequisite for legitimate leadership: 1. Legitimate leadership is built upon trust. Those who are led must largely believe that the leader is committed to integrity, honesty, and transparent inquiry into problems. The leaders actions must align with his words 2. Legitimate leadership rests upon checks and balances, which are necessary to ensure power is not corrupted. 3. Legitimate leadership is an act of service. Those in power must show a primary interest in the good of the collective ahead of their self-interest. In this way, true leaders are mission-centered rather than self-centered. 4. Legitimate leadership empowers others appropriately rather than concentrating power disproportionately. In other words, true leaders produce more leaders and empower them as situations demand. 5. Legitimate leadership is visionary, carrying the torch of a possible future. 6. Legitimate leadership is willing to lead by example, including following a foundation of ethics, performing more than ones share of work, and making sacrifices where appropriate. 7. Legitimate leadership is compassionately fierce when something undermines the good of the whole. In a company this might mean the CEO fires a slacking employee. In a city, the police may jail a murderer. On a global level, this might even mean arresting those breaking global law. The defence function of a leader requires that he safeguard the good of the whole by whatever the most skillful means are to accomplish that defence. While that is not a comprehensive catalog of leadership prerequisites, I do think those few requirements are foundational and relatively unquestionable. Without at least a solid foundation of those requirements, the AGPs actions among nation-states will remain those of a unilateralist leader rather than a global leader. We will be, and should be, legitimated in the role of a global leader among nation-states and validated as police enforcer. The Global Community offers a few recommendations for actions that would strengthen and legitimate the GPAs role as a true global leader by gradually creating an international structure that better safeguards the whole than we can ever do now as a unilateralist leader. As we enact global law, we will begin to take on a much deeper kind of global leadership, one that earns more respect than envy and more gratitude than hatred, one that can catapult the whole planet forward into a future where war is no longer thinkable between nation-states and a legitimate and beneficial global government is able to cope with global problems. Global Community fundamentals concerning the question of "Who owns the Earth?" has been integrated into our global economic system that stipulates: you own a property, use it, share it, or lose it This principle also applies to banks and similar institutions all over the world. You own property because the owners could not pay. Use that property, or share it or lose it. Wall Street is cerainly a prime owner of property and is included with this principle. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. Global rights and the taxation of natural resources can each be used to create and protect this biodiversity zone in Nunavut and over the entire North Pole region. The Inuit government and the Canadian government are invited to start the process of creating such zone. The Global Community has set aside a specific region to create and protect a biodiversity zone in the North Pole region. New way of doing business and trade Often what is called trade is really moving of resources across borders between subsidiaries of the same corporation. Nothing to do with free competition. Economic activity is centrally-managed and planned by the corporate elite. Capital move freely across borders as restrictions on the flow of money have been removed. Corporations can relocate their operations to the countries with the lowest wages, the least active unions and the lowest environmental standards. The reality is that more polluting industries are encouraged to relocate to poorer countries. A polluting industry tends to increase the chances that people in the surrounding area will have health problems. If pollution kills someone or makes them unable to work, the cost to the economy, or to the industry in the case of a law-suit, would be roughly equal to the projected wages that the person would have earned in the rest of their life. In a country with low life expectancy and low wages, this cost will be lessened. It costs less to dump a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country. The Global Community wants to help businesses to be active corporate members of the Global Community. You may be eligible to become a global citizen. The Global Community will do everything possible to give trade the proper guidance for humanity. Trade will become a global co-operation between all nations. The kind of behaviour that happened in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world will not be allowed again. That is the commitment of the Global Community to make government and global citizens responsible and accountable. This commitment was defined in sections 11 to 14 of the Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act. [111] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The business community can help to create a biodiversity zone in the North by changing its ways of doing things, and ways of doing business, and operate its business as per the Scale of Global Rights. New way of doing business Competition wil only be good when corporations, the business world, has accepted the new way of doing business and obtained the Certified Corporate Global Community Citizenship. [112] [cid:part7.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Over its long past history trade has never evolved to require from the trading partners to become legally and morally responsible and accountable for their products from beginning to end. At the end the product becomes a waste and it needs to be properly dispose of. Now trade must be given a new impetus to be in line with the global concepts of the Global Community. You manufacture, produce, mine, farm or create a product, you become legally and morally responsible and accountable of your product from beginning to end (to the point where it actually becomes a waste; you are also responsible for the proper disposable of the waste). This product may be anything and everything from oil & gas, weapons, war products, to genetically engineered food products. All consumer products. All medicinal products! All pharmaceutical products! The Global Community has now at hand the method and framework to conduct societal checks and balances of a global sustainable development. A more balance world economy will result of annual checks and balances. Corporations will take their social responsibilities and become involved in designing, monitoring, and implementing these checks and balances. Several corporations have already done so. Results will be taken into account in the evaluation of sustainable development. Corporations are required to expand their responsibilities to include global rights, the environment, community and family aspects, safe working conditions, fair wages and sustainable consumption aspects. For example, oil and gas companies are responsible and accountable of their products from beginning to end. The 'end' for an oil company does not end at the gas pump where a consumer buy refine products. No! The end goes all the way to global warming, to pollution of the environment, to the destruction of the global life-support systems, to taking away lives of future generations, to the destruction of life on Earth. Very much so! Nationalization of natural resources In order to better protect life on our planet, the Global Community is asking people of all nations to defend and protect their natural resources. In particular, all the hydrocarbons within a national territory must be nationalized. It is an obligation, not only of a national government, but also of all the active forces in a country; it is the duty of local and municipal authorities, the duty of state authorities of everyone to take upon themselves this defense and this recuperation of natural resources. For example in Canada, the property of the hydrocarbons, the oil and natural gas that now that passes freely to the hands of the United States without paying taxes, Canadian corporations that have been taken over by American corporations with bankrupted money. From this point onward, those natural resources will be under control of the Canadian people, for Canadians, and help resolve Canadas economic and social problems. Nationalization is not new. The global financial crisis is good example of nationalization. When Wall Street started to crash, Lehman Brothers went for bankruptcy protection, Merrill Lynch merged with Bank of America, AIG was nationalized by the U.S. Government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bailed out by the U.S. Government. CEO's and big investors got out okay; ordinary employees and Main Street people suffered heavily. The collapse of the Wall Street giants came six months after the meltdown of Bear Stearns and a year after the start of the credit crisis, which was due to bad mortgage financing and real estate investments. Despite all efforts, the U.S. market took a great hit and pulled the global markets down. The US Government thought it would be wise to nationalize key financial institutions, even partially nationalized, so why not natural resources? We not they are in great danger of being destroyed (forests, oceans, fresh water, soils, air we breath, electromagnetic spectrum) or destroying all life on Earth (petroleum rersources). Once Canadians have recovered these natural resources, it will generate employment. The plundering of our natural resources by international and transnational oil and gas companies has come to an end. And for this reason we want to share the joy on this historic day of nationalization. If indeed previous governments have used the Armed Forces for the benefit of transnational corporations, the Armed Forces can now be used to unite for their country, for their nation, for their patria. We are a government of the people, a native government. We are a global community. We want to ask government to defend its sovereignty, its dignity and above all the integrity of its territory, we want to ask that it take charge of all the oil fields of all of its nation. In order to solidify control over resources perceived as being increasingly scarce, some European countries are rewriting laws regarding ownership and control of power and energy sources. Some leftist national leaders have resorted to outright nationalization of resources and industry assets. The state recovers ownership, possession and total and absolute control of hydrocarbons. This means the state will own and sell these resources, relegating foreign companies to operators. Previously, the law said the state no longer owned the gas once companies extracted it from underground. This is just the start. Other resources can also be nationalized: mining, the forestry sector, and eventually all the natural resources for which ancestors fought for. As defined by the Global Community, the concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Unless a reformed or empowered Global Community is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for all Global Citizens, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labour. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property. Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few. So the ownership of the land and the natural resources will be challenged by the Global Community. People need all tax dollars to take on the challenge but first must get out of spending on the military invasion of nations. Similarly, all the Earth natural resources belong to the Global Community to be used, developed and protected for the maximum benefit of the people and of all life. Global tax The Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. The Global Community proposes to ask you to pay a global tax on your products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying your products and force you to use viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax for the environment and the global life-support systems. A workable type of Tobin tax should also be in place as it is a powerful instrument to promote sustainable development and force shareholders in moving away from producing oil. A Tobin tax is a tax on all trade of currency across borders to put a penalty on short-term speculation in currencies. The tax rate should be 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars. The proposal is important due to its potential to prevent global financial crises such as we are seeing now. Also, an estimated $500 billion per year makes it possible to meet urgent global priorities, such as preventing global warming, disease, and poverty. The tax should be managed by the Global Community and the Federation of Global Governments. In the globalized economy, there is a lack of adequate funding for global problems such as disease, poverty and hunger. Global climate change, deforestation, population growth and unemployment, declining fisheries and pollution threaten local communities worldwide. Projects which could help to address these needs and create jobs will cost more than $500 billion annually. Private donors do not meet the need, and some nations cut their aid budgets. New multilateral approaches to public finance, such as Tobin Taxes, may provide part of the answer. Tobin-style taxes would work well: * On Wall Street, currency speculators trade over $2 trillion dollars each day across borders. * Each trade would be taxed at 0.1 to 0.25 percent of volume (about 10 to 25 cents per hundred dollars) * This would discourage short-term currency trades,about 90 percent speculative, but leave long-term productive investments intact. * The currency market would thus shrink in volume, helping to restore national economic autonomy. Nations again could intervene effectively to protect their own currency from devaluation and financial crisis. * Billions in revenue, estimated at $500 billion per year, would be generated. * Revenue could go into earmarked trust funds to fund urgent Global Community priorities. The Global Community should set up expert groups and begin the necessary intergovernmental negotiations towards establishing alternative revenue sources, which could include fees for the commercial use of the oceans, fees for airplane use of the skies, fees for use of the electromagnetic spectrum, fees levied on foreign exchange transactions, and a tax on carbon content of fuels. This thinking should give us a fresh start for a better future. The planet and all its resources of land, water, forests, minerals, the atmosphere, electro-magnetic frequencies, and even satellite orbits belong to the Global Community. The Global Economic Model makes sure that the profits of the Earth will benefit the people and all life, and secure an age of peace and fairness for all. Properly managed small farms along with ecological villages can produce a diverse range of food, fiber, livestock, and energy products for local markets. Bio methods of farming depending on renewable energy sources can yield both social and environmental stability. Tax policies that remove taxes on labour and productive capital will be the sustainable pillar that makes the global economic model [113] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] works for all. This Global Movement for land value taxation and natural resource rent for revenue can provide the basis for worldwide economic democracy. Freedom to live or work in any part of the globe would also further equality of entitlement to the planet, and provide a basis for the resolution of resource wars and territorial conflicts. There would be no more private profit as unearned income from Earth natural resources. Instead, transparent and accountable resource agencies would collect resource rents and distribute those funds in public services or as direct citizen dividends. With fundamental democracy in rights to the Earth firmly established through legal means and mandates, basic needs would be secured for all and the militarized national security state and its bloated budgets could wither away. Fot the protection of global communities worldwide we will need to create economic stability by way of Earth rights and taxation of natural resources. Section 1 on the Scale of Global Rights, [114] [cid:part6.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] the ecological rights and the protection of the global life-support systems, is concerned with the conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet. The Global Community concept of ownership states that land and natural resources of the planet are a common heritage and belong equally to everyone, to all life on Earth, as a birthright. Products and services created by individuals are properly viewed as private property. Products and services created by groups of individuals are properly viewed as collective property. Taxes should be designed to conserve resources and energy. Rather than taxing jobs and profits, taxes should be moved to resource use, pollution, energy consumption and to reward conservation. A community should benefit from the use of commonly held resources. Taxes should be designed to increase employment. Moving taxes onto resources and land use and off of incomes should make people less expensive to employ. Products produced by green production methods, which tends to use fewer resources and less energy should avoid taxation. As energy costs rise, the price of labour becomes more economical, and green products which tend to encourage value-added processes, should provide more high quality, skilled jobs than resource intensive products. Resource taxes should be assessed as early as possible. Resources should be taxed before entering the manufacturing process in order to green all aspects of the manufacturing process from extraction to the finished product. Increasing taxes on resource and energy use will encourage resource and energy efficiency, innovation, reuse, repair, recycling, and used material recovery. The Global Community proposes to ask people to pay a global tax on products. The tax would be high enough to discourage consumers from buying pollution products and force to make use of viable alternatives. The Governments of the United States and Canada should put a high tax on all oil based products and their derivatives and certainly gasoline should have the highest tax possible. The tax would be a carbon tax for the environment and the global life-support systems. The Global Community also proposes to develope a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards. The WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, the EU and the UN are worldwide organizations that can and should be used to raise global taxes on behalf of the Global Community to redistribute to the poorest and developing nations. Only the Global Community can rightfully claim ownership of the Earth. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. However, we have reached the deplorable circumstance where in large measure a very powerful few are in possession of the Earth's resources virtually without taxation. The Global Community proposes a Green Tax approach to financing local-to-global public goods. There is a troublesome and painful contradiction in the lives of many of us who are working for peace, justice, poverty eradication, debt cancellation and sustainable development. While our hearts and minds focus on building a better world for everyone, each day we hand over fistfuls of dollars to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous, dirty and polluting technologies, and subsidize huge conglomerates which concentrate the wealth of the world in the control of the few. But together we can end tax tyranny and align our visions and values with how we finance our governments. The Global Community was looking for a method of raising global taxes, of redistributing incomes to the poorest communities, of providing debt-free technical assistance to non-industrial and developing countries to help them out of poverty and to meet environmental and social standards, but there it was all along right on our eyes. Global tax A) A tobin tax as a powerful instrument of the promotion of sustainable development [115] [cid:part25.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] B) A Green Tax Shift Policy Approach to financing local-to-global public goods [116] [cid:part25.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] C) The debt of developing countries - was really a global tax developed countries had to pay to developing countries [117] [cid:part25.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] D) Green tax aspects and issues[118] Green tax aspects and issues A) A tobin tax as a powerful instrument of the promotion of sustainable development The Global Community is making a strong case in favour of the introduction of a specific type of tobin tax as a powerful instrument of the promotion of sustainable development, both directly as well as indirectly. Indirectly, it can discourage financial speculation and currency crises with their devastating effects on countries; directly, as a tax, the proceeds of it can be used as an alternative source of sustainable development finance in order to promote the establishment of international public goods. The original Tobin tax proposal can be made into a feasible instrument by engineering it as a two-tier tax (the so-called Spahn version of the Tobin tax), with tax collection through the international settlements system. The global economy can be affected by the deregulation in the movement of capital and thus by speculation. Money is made off tiny fluctuations in the relative prices of currencies. Speculation makes it possible for huge amounts of money to be transferred half-way around the world in a matter of seconds. Whereas world trade associated with actual goods and services is estimated at 7 trillion dollars (US) a year, speculation is estimated at 1.5 trillion dollar a day. If a country's economy starts to slow, billions of dollars can be transferred out of the country instantaneously, which can significantly affect its economy and the people. This has been the case in 1997 of a number of East Asia countries. They were bankrupted by speculation. The people were enormously affected for the worst. Speculation can exert tremendous pressure on the internal politics of a country. It can bankrupt a country's economy. Speculation should be de-institutionalized. Humanity has no real need for speculation, and it does way more damage than good. Speculation is a form of gambling and is evil. B) A Green Tax Shift Policy Approach to financing local-to-global public goods The Global Community proposes a Green Tax Shift Policy Approach to financing local-to-global public goods. There is a troublesome and painful contradiction in the lives of many of us who are working for peace, justice, poverty eradication, debt cancellation and sustainable development. While our hearts and minds focus on building a better world for everyone, each day we hand over fistfuls of dollars to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous, dirty and polluting technologies, and subsidize huge conglomerates which concentrate the wealth of the world in the control of the few. But together we can end tax tyranny and align our visions and values with how we finance our governments. Taxation not only raises money to fund government services, it also reflects the overall value system of a society. The goal of green tax policy is to create a system of public finance which strengthens and maximize incentives for: * Fair distribution of wealth * Environmental protection * Basic needs production * Provision of adequate government services * Peaceful resolution of territorial conflicts Green tax reform makes a clear distinction between private property and common property. Private property is that which is created by labour. Common property is that which is provided by nature. Green tax policy removes taxes from wages and other private property and increases taxes and user fees on common property. Reducing taxes on labour increases purchasing capacity, reducing taxes on capital encourages efficiency. Shifting taxes to land and resources curbs speculation and private profiteering in our common property and is a practical way to conserve and fairly share the Earth. Green tax policy CUTS taxes on: * Wages and earned income * Productive and sustainable capital * Sales, especially for basic necessities * Homes and other buildings Green tax policy INCREASES taxes and fees on: * Land sites according to land value * Lands used for timber, grazing, mining * Emissions into air, water, or soil * Ocean and freshwater resources * Electromagnetic spectrum * Satellite orbital zones * Oil and minerals Green tax policy seeks to ELIMINATE subsidies environmentally or socially harmful, unnecessary, or inequitable. Slated for drastic reduction or complete removal are subsidies for: * Energy production * Resource extraction * Commerce and industry * Agriculture and forestry * Weapons of mass destruction C) The debt of developing countries - was really a global tax developed countries had to pay to developing countries Global Economic Model The state of the world today is the result of a specific set of interlocking institutions: the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. These institutions are designed to generate massive wealth for the few and poverty for the rest. The same people who make the decisions in government and corporation make the profit. They create a tight concentration of power. Together they are a form of anti-government whose only goal is profit. The IMF, through Structural Adjustment Programs, now directly runs the economies of over 70 countries. That means that about 1000 economists and bureaucrats control the economic policies for 1.4 billion people in these countries. That is a form of anti-government. The people that profit most from the global economy are white people. The people who are most oppressed by the global economy are people of colour. Racism and sexism have become the norm. The entire planet is in a state of low intensity civil war. The ruling elite profit off of the exploitation of the rest of the world. Certainly this is not good economics. The Earth is the birthright of all life. How the Earth should be owned is the major economic question of this time. The world should be owned not just by the people living in it but by all life on Earth and the Soul of Life, the Soul of . Unless a reformed or empowered Global Community is leading firmly upon the principle of equal rights for the Global Community, then the planet will be controlled by a handful of vested interests. Land here, by definition, covers all naturally occurring resources like surface land, minerals deposits (gold, oil etc), water, electromagnetic spectrum, the trees, fish in the seas and rivers. It is unjust to treat land as private property. Land is not a product of labour. Everyone should therefore be given equal access to natural resources. The Global Economic Model proposes to make private property the product of labour. Common property is all what Nature offers. The Global Economic Model policy removes taxes from wages and increases taxes and user fees on common property. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. In today's affairs a very powerful few are in possession of the Earth's resources, the land and all its riches, and all the franchises and other privileges that yield a return. These few people operate virtually without taxation. Is that what we want as a global democracy? Who should own the Earth? The United Nations (UN) cannot have characteristics of sovereignty, which has been defined around a territory and population. The Global Community has in fact been defined around a given territory, that territory being the planet as a whole, as well as a specific population, which is the Global Community. The Global Community has the power to make the laws of the land and to make the rules for the territory of the Earth. Global Law has been and continue to be researched and developed for this purpose. Whoever owns the land and all other natural resources exerts power over those who are landless and no resources. The Global Community proposes to extend democratic principles to include the ownership and control of the Earth. The Global Economic Model was created for all the people on the planet. The model makes sure that the rights of all people and the rights of the planet are one and the same. The Global Economic Model stipulates as well that we, as human beings, are trustees and caretakers of all other life forms on Earth. The Global Economic Model is global, as people are freed to move beyond borders and boundaries and claim the whole Earth as their birthplace. The model eliminates subsidies that are environmentally or socially harmful, and inequitable. It is best for humanity and the increasing world population to see ourselves as people living together or far apart but in constant communication with each other. A community has no boundaries. A global symbiotical relationship between two or more nations, or between two or more global communities, can have trade as the major aspect of the relationship or it can have as many other aspects as agreed by the people involved. The fundamental criteria is that a relationship is created for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development and a more stable and inclusive global economy. The emphasis of a global symbiotical relationship is not so much on how much money a nation should have or how high a GDP should be although money can be made a part of the relationship. We all know developed countries live off developing countries so the emphasis has no need to stress out the profit a rich nation is making off a poor nation. The emphasis of the relationship should give more importance to the other aspects such as quality of life, protection of the environment and of the global life-support systems, the entrenchment of the Scale of Global Rights [119] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] and Global Law into our ways of life, justice, peace, cultural and spiritual freedom, security, and many other important aspects as described in the global ministries (health, agriculture, energy, trade, resources, etc.). [120] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, oil, minerals, other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community. The Earth is the birthright of all life. Each day taxpayers hand over astronomical amounts of money to build weapons of mass destruction, fuel dangerous and polluting technologies, and subsidize giant corporations which concentrate the wealth and power of the world in the hands of an elite few. The planet and all its resources of land, water, forests, minerals, the atmosphere, electro-magnetic frequencies, and even satellite orbits belong to the communities where they are found along with the Global Community. The Global Economic Model makes sure that the profits of the Earth will benefit the people and all life, and secure an age of peace and fairness for all. Properly managed small farms along with ecological villages can produce a diverse range of food, fiber, livestock, and energy products for local markets. Bio methods of farming depending on renewable energy sources can yield both social and environmental stability. Tax policies that remove taxes on labour and productive capital will be the sustainable pillar that makes the global economic model [121] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] works for all. This Global Movement for land value taxation and natural resource rent for revenue can provide the basis for worldwide economic democracy. Freedom to live or work in any part of the globe would also further equality of entitlement to the planet, and provide a basis for the resolution of resource wars and territorial conflicts. There would be no more private profit as unearned income from Earth natural resources. Instead, transparent and accountable resource agencies would collect resource rents and distribute those funds in public services or as direct citizen dividends. With fundamental democracy in rights to the Earth firmly established through legal means and mandates, basic needs would be secured for all and the militarized national security state and its bloated budgets could wither away. The method of introducing and making the transition to the new global finance, credit, money and banking system, is by extending multi-billion unit revolving lines of credit in Global Credits or Earth currency to all developing countries, and to other countries, willing to accept the terms defined herein. The method bases the capacity and ability of the Global Financial Credit Corporation (GFCC) to extend lines of credit simply on facts of people available to work, resources available, and technology available, whether within a country or by transfer, and is not dependent on nor limited by prior savings. GFCC shall calculate initial revolving lines of credit in Global Credits or Earth currency on the basis of: A. G50,000,000 units (about 1987 U.S. $1 billion) for each million of population for countries having natural population increase rates by birth of more than 2% annually, B. G75,000,000 units (about 1987 U.S. $1.5 billion) per million of population for countries having natural population increase rates of between 1% and 2%, C. G100,000,000 units (about 1987 U.S. $2 billion) per million of population for countries having natural population increase rates of between 0% and 1%, and D. G125,000,000 units (about 1987 U.S. $2.5 billion) per million of population for countries having zero or less population growth. The extension of financial credit by the GFCC is further sustained by the following values: The value of all the resources in the oceans and seabeds beyond 20 km. offshore, which is claimed as Global Territory and as the Common Heritage of Humanity by the Global Community. The claim of humanity as a whole (as represented by the Global Community during this transition period) to the equivalent of G500,000,000 units plus (roughly equivalent of ten trillion dollars U.S. 2004 currency), which the separate nations of Earth currently propose to obtain from their citizens and spend for genocidal military equipment, preparations, and operations during the next ten years. The financial, credit, money and banking system under Earth Government must be based on virtually unlimited financial credit, which can be extended wherever there are people to work, resources available, technology available, and viable plans for the use of the credit, without being dependent on or limited by prior savings or prior capital formation. Financial credit must be available in sufficient quantity to carry out unlimited and life-saving peaceful development projects in all countries and all parts of Earth, as well as to implement fully the Global Disarmament Agency, the Emergency Global Rescue Administration, the World Economic Development Organization, and all other Global Legislative Measures adopted by the Global Parliament and subsequently to be adopted by the fully constituted Global Parliamentt. To launch such a Global Finance, Global Credit, Money, and Global Banking System, it is desirable that the National Governments of a sufficient number of countries (sufficient to establish full credibility and operative acceptance of the new global financial system) shall ratify or give provisional ratification to the Global Constitution of Earth Government, and agree to use and make the transition to the new global financial system. A basket of measured commodities linked to the value of an hour's worth of labour is one way to define the value of a monetary system's unit. The selection of items for the basket is somewhat arbitrary, but one can select items that any human being is likely to consume if the particular resources are available. Once determined by law, the valuation can take place. No valuation can take place if no world legislation arbitrarily sets the initial value for the unit. The following basket of 16 measured commodities represents approximately what any adult worldwide on a living wage might be expected to consume or conserve in one day. Therefore, this value is equal to the minimum wage that a citizen can earn in one four-hour day. The basket is also a small enough basket to be comprehensible and memorable to most adults. The following basket of 16 measured commodities linked to the value of an hour of labour is hereby the basis for the unit of Global Credit or Earth currency: [(1 kilogram wheat + 1 kilogram rice + 1 kilogram corn + 1 kilogram potato + 1 kilogram manioc + 1 kilogram soya + 1 kilogram peanut + 1 kilogram lentil+ 1 kilogram pea + 1 kilogram garbanzo + 1 kilogram nyam) / 11] + 10 litres of pure, potable water + 1 litre crude oil + [(100 grams iron + 100 grams aluminum + 100 grams copper) / 3] = 1 unit of Global Credit or Earth currency = 4 hours labour at minimum wage (@ G0.25 units per hour minimum) = 1 day's wage. A person may obtain other commodities by trade in value, so a person need not personally have any of the commodities in stock in order to conserve value in the monetary system. The value of the Global Credit or Earth currency may not be adjusted by any external private bank, such as the World Bank, or the International Monetary Fund. Included commodities may only be added or subtracted by the Global Parliament. Planetary state of emergency Our planet is populated with living beings consisting of millions of different life forms interacting with each other to survive, thus forming an intricate web of life in different ecosystems on the planet. The interaction and interdependence between life forms are the driving force that creates and maintains an ecological - environmental equilibrium that has sustained life on Earth for millions of years enabling it to evolve, flourish and diversify. The Global Community values Earths diversity in all its forms, the non-human as well as the human. Virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and Oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. It is a part of the global life-support systems and is a right that needs protecting at all costs. The right and responsibility that human beings have in protecting photosynthesis has the highest importance on the Scale of Global Rights. [122] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] On Earths surface exists a diversity of arctic, temperate and tropical ecosystems with many different varieties of plants, animals, and human beings, all of which are dependent on soils, waters and local climates. Biodiversity, the diversity of organisms, depends on maintenance of ecodiversity, the diversity of ecosystems. Cultural diversity which in effect is a form of biodiversity is the historical result of humans fitting their activities, thoughts and language to specific geographic ecosystems. Therefore, whatever degrades and destroys ecosystems is both a biological and a cultural source. Earth is mostly covered with oceans. Though generally recognized as several 'separate' oceans, these waters comprise one global, interconnected body of salt water forming the Global Ocean. This concept of a global ocean as a continuous body of water with relatively free interchange among its parts is of fundamental importance to the Global Community. The major oceanic divisions are defined in part by the continents, and various archipelagos. These divisions are the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Southern Ocean (which is sometimes subsumed as the southern portions of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans), and the Arctic Ocean (which is sometimes considered a sea of the Atlantic). The Pacific and Atlantic may be further subdivided by the equator into northerly and southerly portions. Smaller regions of the oceans are called seas, gulfs, bays and other names. There are also some smaller bodies of saltwater that are on land and not interconnected with the Global Ocean, such as the Aral Sea, and the Great Salt Lake though they may be referred to as 'seas', they are actually salt lakes. Despite their huge size, the oceans have been greatly affected by human activity. Pollution and overfishing are two major concerns. The Arctic is one of the most beautiful and forbidding places on Earth, where temperatures regularly plunge well below zero and the time between sunset and sunrise is sometimes measured in months rather than hours. Yet despite these difficult conditions a variety of people and animals have adapted to thrive at the top of the world, including vibrant communities and iconic animal species. The Arctic Ocean is facing incredible pressures. As goes the Arctic, so goes the planet. There is no single Arctic treaty, so it is up to the Global Community to save this vital part of our planet. And this is one of the reasons for creating the planetary biodiversity zone. Oceans add considerable inertia to the climate system, slowing it down, and hence increase the time it takes the system to respond to change. Responsive change in ocean circulation patterns, such as the thermohaline circulation system that controls the behaviour of the Atlantic Gulf Stream, can also significantly modify the primary changes in atmospheric circulation. Greenland ice cores and ocean sediments confirm that such modifications can have dramatic effects on regional climates, effects that may occur within the space of decades, and can last for centuries. Hence oceans add an additional major element of irreversibility, on human time scales, to global climate change. Historically, CO[2] taken up in the biological carbon cycle was approximately equal to the CO[2] released. The global production of carbon fixed by plants was then equal to the global ecosystem respiration that comprised respiration by plants plus respiration by all other living things on land. On a global basis, there was no net flux of carbon to or from the atmosphere, and there was not net change in carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems (globally). Unfortunately, human activities have recently been converting forested landscapes to grazed, cultivated, or urban landscapes. Deforestation is the removal of trees, often as a result of human activities. It is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis. Both the rotting and burning of wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere. A rainforest is a biome, a forested area where the annual rainfall is high. Some mention 1000 mm of rain each year as a limit of what is a rainforest, but that definition is far from complete. Rainforests are primarily found in tropical climates, although there are a few examples of rainforests in temperate regions as well. As well as prodigious rainfall, many rainforests are characterized by a high number of resident species, and a great biodiversity. It is also estimated that rainforests provide up to 40% of the oxygen currently found in the atmosphere. Forests store large amounts of CO[2], buffering the CO[2] in the atmosphere. The carbon retained in the Amazon basin is equivalent to at least 20% of the entire atmospheric CO[2]. Destruction of the forests would release about four fifths of the CO[2] to the atmosphere. Half of the CO[2] would dissolve in the oceans but the other half would be added to the 16% increase already observed this century, accelerating world temperature increases. Another impact of tropical rainforest destruction would be to reduce the natural production of nitrous oxide (NO). Tropical forests and their soils produce up to one half of the world's NO which helps to destroy stratospheric ozone. Any increase in stratospheric ozone would warm the stratosphere but lower global surface temperatures. Dense tropical forests also have a great effect on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration and the reduction of surface runoff. With dense foliage, about a third of the rain falling on the forest never reached the ground, being re-evaporated off the leaves. Today there is a net loss of biomass through: a) deforestation and land use conversion b) worldwide burning of fossil fuels Great ocean currents swirl around the Earth, many of them thousands of kilometres long. Some are warm currents, some are cold. These currents have an enormous effect on the world's weather systems. Oceans also have layers of water at different temperatures. The Global Ocean has a great impact on the biosphere. The evaporation of these oceans is how we get most of our rainfall, and their temperature determines our climate and wind pattern. The Global Ocean serves many functions, especially affecting the weather and temperature. Oceans moderate the Earth's temperature by absorbing incoming solar radiation (stored as heat energy). The continuously moving ocean currents distribute this heat energy around the globe. This heats the land and air during winter and cools it during summer. Oceans support the greatest variety of life on earth, from microscopic plankton to giant whales. The deepest parts of the oceans have barely begun to be explored, and new life forms are being discovered every year by deep ocean submersible machines. Planetary biodiversity zone Biological diversity means the variety and variability among living organisms, global communities, and the ecosystems in which they are a part. Elements of biodiversity include: a) genetic diversity which includes the different genetic make-up among individuals of a single species b) species diversity which includes the different species within a particular geographic area, such as the fish, birds, insects, bacteria and plants that live within a wetland The variety of ecosystem types include forests, grasslands, deserts, wetlands, streams, lakes and oceans, and the global communities within them. These communities interact with each other and with the non-living environment. It is well known that the planet's diversity is being threatened. The effect that human activities have had on our planet have become a major concern. Erosion, pollution, desertification, increased rates of extinction can all be traced back to human activities and are now starting to completely change the future of life on the planet. Development in society are serious and affect biodiversity. Perhaps we should understand better the good of biodiversity. At the ecosystem level, biodiversity provides numerous benefits and services to the Global Community. During the last century, the lost of biodiversity has been increasingly observed. About one eighth known plant species is threatened with extinction and this is a loss of about 140,000 species per year. Our rapid human population expansion, need, greed, and ignorance, have caused alarming destruction of the Earth's living resources. As a result, thousands of life forms have been threatened, endangered, or extinct. At current rate of destruction over 50% of species of life forms will be wiped out within 50 years seriously compromising the integrity of life on Earth. In fact, this magnitude of destruction will have unknown consequences with respect to the food supply, environment, climate, and the overall well being of the planet. Human activities are responsible for most of the species extinctions, in particular destruction of plant and animal habitats, often being driven by human consumption of organic resources. When they are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food, and their habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards. The ecosystem decreases in stability as its species are made extinct and the global ecosystem is destined for collapse. Significant factors contributing to loss of biodiversity are: deforestation, overpopulation, pollution ( water pollution, air pollution, soil contamination), global warming, and climate change. Actions that affect the stability and health of the Global Community and its ecosystems need to be identified and publicly condemned. Among the most destructive of human activities are militarism and its gross expenditures, the mining of toxic materials, the manufacture of biological poisons in all forms, industrial farming, industrial fishing, and industrial forestry. Destructive technologies such as these, justified as necessary for protecting specific human populations, enriching special corporate interests, and satisfying human wants rather than needs, will lead to evergreater ecological and social disasters. Global rights and the taxation of natural resources can each be used to create and protect this biodiversity zone in Nunavut and over the entire North Pole region. The Inuit government and the Canadian government are invited to start the process of creating such zone. The Global Community has set aside a specific region to create and protect a biodiversity zone in the North Pole region. [cid:part26.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Map #1 ( see enlargement [123] Planetary Biodiversity Zone: North Pole region ) Planetary Biodiversity Zone: North Pole region Artwork by Germain Dufour September 26, 2008 The Global Community has also established a planetary biodiversity zone now under the protection of the Global Protection Agency (GPA). [cid:part27.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Map #2 ( see enlargement [124] Planetary Biodiversity Zone: oceans, rivers, lakes and forests ) Planetary Biodiversity Zone: oceans, rivers, lakes and forests Artwork by Germain Dufour September 25, 2008 We have declared a moratorium on all development in the zone. The planetary biodiversity zone includes : * North Pole region * South Pole region * all oceans * all forests * all lakes * all rivers and connecting streams * all wetlands and grasslands * living organisms and ecosystems in all of the above The people of all nations are required to respect the moratorium until global law [125] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] has been completed to include regulations to be enforced by the GPA.[126] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The Earth and all its natural resources belong to all the "global communities" contained therein. A village, or a city is "a global community" and owns the land around its boundaries. Along with the Global Community, it has ownership of all natural resources within its boundaries. It is well known that the planet's diversity is being threatened. The effect that human activities have had on our planet have become a major concern. Erosion, pollution, desertification, increased rates of extinction can all be traced back to human activities and are now starting to completely change the future of life on the planet. Adding to this problem of climate change, warmer temperatures, is the melting of the Polar Cap due to the U.S.A. military exploding nuclear war heads to melt the Polar Cap and glaciers. All nations capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth must be disarmed and pay for the independent global investigation. The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life. Blood resources. [127] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The United States is the only nation that would profit from the melting of the North Pole and is capable of such an extreme action against humanity and all life on Earth by exploding nuclear bombs to melt glaciers and North Pole cap. The Earth Court of Justice will see that Justice is done. In view of the planetary state of emergency, the Global Community says: for the protection of all life on Earth, a preventive principle is our only alternative. You are guilty until you can prove otherwise. Global Law must be applied. The United States must pay for the independent investigation. Would you agree? Our rapid human population expansion, need, greed, and ignorance, have caused alarming destruction of the Earth's living resources. As a result, thousands of life forms have been threatened, endangered, or extinct. At current rate of destruction over 50% of species of life forms will be wiped out within 50 years seriously compromising the integrity of life on Earth. In fact, this magnitude of destruction will have unknown consequences with respect to the food supply, environment, climate, and the overall well being of the planet. Human activities are responsible for most of the species extinctions, in particular destruction of plant and animal habitats, often being driven by human consumption of organic resources. When they are not food species, their biomass is converted into human food, and their habitat is transformed into pasture, cropland, and orchards. The ecosystem decreases in stability as its species are made extinct and the global ecosystem is destined for collapse. Significant factors contributing to loss of biodiversity are: deforestation, overpopulation, pollution ( water pollution, air pollution, soil contamination), global warming, and climate change. Actions that affect the stability and health of the Global Community and its ecosystems need to be identified and publicly condemned. Among the most destructive of human activities are militarism and its gross expenditures, the mining of toxic materials, the manufacture of biological poisons in all forms, industrial farming, industrial fishing, and industrial forestry. Destructive technologies such as these, justified as necessary for protecting specific human populations, enriching special corporate interests, and satisfying human wants rather than needs, will lead to evergreater ecological and social disasters. The Global Community believes that to protect this ecosystem, industrial activity both inside and outside the planetary biodiversity zone must be carefully regulated. Large reserves able to maintain their ecological integrity must be adequately set aside and thorough environmental assessments must be carried out before governments decide to allow any sort of large-scale industrial activity. CAPTION: What we must do to protect life and create a planetary biodiversity zone Respect the moratorium on all development in the zone The Global Community has declared a moratorium on all development in the zone, including all drilling, military testing, and any other destructive uses of the ecosystems. The planetary biodiversity zone includes : * North Pole region * South Pole region * all oceans * all forests * all lakes * all rivers and connecting streams * all wetlands and grasslands * living organisms and ecosystems in all of the above The people of all nations are required to respect the moratorium until global law [128] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] has been completed to include regulations to be enforced by the GPA.[129] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] Reduce human population size A primary cause of ecosystem destruction and species extinctions is the human overpopulation that already far exceeds ecologically sustainable levels. Total world population, now at 6.7 billion, is inexorably climbing by 75 million a year. Every additional human is an environmental user on a planet whose capacity to provide for all its creatures is size-limited. In all lands the pressure of numbers continues to undermine the integrity and generative functioning of terrestrial, fresh water, and marine ecosystems. Our human monoculture is overwhelming and destroying Natures polycultures. Country by country, world population size must be reduced by reducing conceptions. Educate our children on the ethics that value life species Educate our childrenn on the ethics that value life species over consuming resources without restraint, and condemn the social acceptance of unlimited human fecundity. Present need to reduce numbers is greatest in wealthy countries where per capita use of energy and Earth materials is highest. A reasonable objective is the reduction to population levels as they were before the widespread use of fossil fuels; that is, to one billion or less. This will be accomplished either by intelligent policies or inevitably by plague, famine, and warfare. Ban overconsumption of Earth resources The greatest threat to the planetary biodiversity zone is the ever-increasing appropriation of the planets goods for exclusive human uses. Such appropriation and over-use, often justified by population overgrowth, steals the livelihood of other organisms. The selfish view that humans have the right to all ecosystem components air, land, water, organisms is morally reprehensible. It is wrong. Global Rights [130] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] were researched and developed for all life on our planet, not just for ourselves as human beings. Unlike plants, we must kill to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves, but this is no license to plunder and exterminate. The accelerating consumption of Earths vital parts is a recipe for destruction of ecodiversity and biodiversity. Wealthy nations armed with powerful technology are the chief offenders, best able to reduce consumption and share with those whose living standards are lowest, but no nation is blameless. The eternal growth ideology of the market, and Wall Street, must be renounced, as well as the perverse industrial and economic policies based on it. One rational step toward curbing exploitive economic expansion is the ending of public subsidies to those industries that pollute air, land or water and/or destroy organisms and soils. A philosophy of symbiosis, of living compliantly as a member of Earths communities, will ensure the restoration of productive ecosystems. Promote global governance Concepts of governance that encourage over-exploitation and destruction of Earths ecosystems must be replaced by those beneficial to the survival and integrity of the Global Community. Everyone is asked to help. A body of environmental law and regulations that confers legal standing on the Global Communitys vital structures and functions is required. Country by country, ecologically responsible people must be elected or appointed to governing bodies. Appropriate attorney-guardians will act as defendants when ecosystems and their fundamental processes are threatened. Issues will be settled on the basis of preserving ecosystem integrity, not on preserving economic gain. Over time, new bodies of global law, policy, and administration will emerge as embodiments of the 21st Century life philosophy of the Global Community. Implementation will be the work of the Global protection Agency (GPA). Education and leadership are needed We all have a duty to spread the word by education and leadership. The initial urgent task is to awaken all people to their functional dependence on Earths ecosystems, as well as to their bonds with other species. We must all participate in Earth-wise global community activities, each playing a personal part in sustaining the marvelous surrounding reality. By promoting a quest for abiding values a culture of compliance and symbiosis with our living planet it fosters a unifying outlook. By spreading the ecological message and emphasizing humanitys shared outer reality, will open a new and promising path toward international understanding, harmony, cooperation, stability, and peace. Federation of Global Governments Essential Services We can no longer perceive ourselves as a People who could survive alone and a People who does not need anyone else. We belong and depend to this much larger group, that of the Global Community. The 21st Century will see limitless links and interrelationships within the Global Community. That is the 'raison d'etre' of the Global Governments Federation. [131] [cid:part10.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] The Federation of Global Governments is the place of meeting between Global Governments. [132]Earth Government schematics ( [133]see enlargement ) Earth Government schematics Artwork by Germain Dufour June 1st, 2008 The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. We want each Global Government to take a larger share of responsibility of the specific region where it operates, and be more accountable to the people of that region, and to all life on Earth. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. [134] [cid:part3.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] All of them are already in operation on a small scale. The power of Global Community was de-centralized to give each Global Government (GG) a better chance to find the right solutions to global issues. It can act faster and be more effective and efficient in the context of the Global Community, this great, wide, wonderful world made of all these diverse global communities within each Nation. The Global Community becomes thus more fluid and dynamic. A global symbiotical relationship is created between Nations and Global Community for the good of all groups participating in the relationship and for the good of humanity, all life on Earth. The relationship allows a global equitable and peaceful development. This is the basic concept that is allowing us to group willing Member Nations from different parts of the world. The Civic Law, that is Global Law. [135] Global Law a) The Portal of the Global Civilization is being researched and developed by members of the Executive Council of Global Ministers[136] Executive Council of Global Ministers and by the Global Community through the Global Dialogue process [137] [cid:part30.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] [138]Global Civilization b) Global Law: Earth and human rights, Statutes, Codes, Standards, Bills and Other Legislative Information. This WWW site is maintained by the Legislative Counsel of Global Parliament, pursuant to Earth Government Global Law, its legislation. Earth Government Global Law consists of 69 codes, covering various subject areas, the Global Constitution, Bills and Statutes. Information presented reflects laws currently in effect. All Earth Government Codes have been updated to include Statutes of year 2005. Researched and developed by the Global Community[139] Global Law c) Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act. Researched and developed by the Global Community[140] Global Citizens Rights, Responsibility and Accountability Act d) Global Constitution. We call upon the national governments and legislatures of the world to ratify the Global Constitution for Earth Government and elect delegates to the House of the Global Governments Federation. Researched and developed by the Global Community[141] The 28 Chapters of the Global Constitution e) Agency of Global Police (AGP). Building global communities requires a mean to enforce global law that protects all life on Earth. Researched and developed by the Global Community[142] The Agency of Global Police (AGP) f) Global Protection Agency (GPA). Global Protection Agency will train and lead a global force, bypassing traditional peacekeeping and military bodies such as the United Nations and NATO. This is a great opportunity for globallateralism. Researched and developed by the Global Community[143] Global Protection Agency (GPA) g) Global Community Earth Government: Politics and Justice without borders.Prosecuting criminals on the basis of universal jurisdiction regardless of a territorial or nationality nexus requires a solid commitment of political will from national governments and the Global Community. The Earth Court of Justice[144] Earth Court of Justice will hear cases involving crimes related to the global ministries. The Court will have a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by national governments, local communities, and in some special cases by corporations, non-government-organizations and citizens, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized organs and agencies. Researched and developed by the Global Community[145] Global Community Earth Government: Politics and Justice without borders Those are the laws we must follow faithfully. [cid:part31.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] As a first step to getting help, all nations can and should approve those first three sections on the Scale of Global Rights.[146] Scale of Global Rights The approval would supersede the political and physical borders of participating member nations. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) would have the approval from all member nations to give immediate help, bypassing normal government protocols. Somewhat like an emergency unit but at the global level. That is what those first three sections mean. They represent an efficient and immediate emergency response to help. First, participating member nations need to give their approval to the GPA. The GPA is a global organization much like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for trade between nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) for health, or the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFT), South American Community of Nations (SACON) for trade and economics. The GPA offers an efficient emergency response to help. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate and efficient response to help. There are also long term solutions. As with the short term solution, the most significant long term solution is also related to the Scale of Global Rights. The Scale was entrenched in the Global Constitution and is thus the fundamental guide to Global Law. Now the Scale of Global Rights is a long term solution and is also a part of the Global Movement to Help of the Global Community. [cid:part32.491C7A6C.4BFA710A@telus.net] ( [147]see enlargement ) Global Movement to Help Artwork by Germain Dufour The Scale was designed to help all life on Earth. What would be preferable is that nations unite amongst themselves to help. Over time, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, the South American Community of Nations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Except for the UN, these organizations are mainly concerned with trade and economics. The Global Community offers a more meaningful union in the form of nine or more Global Governments. For instance the South American Community of Nations can be a Global Government by simply accepting the Global Constitution as a way of dealing between member nations. A Global Government is concerned not only with economics and trade, but also with the environment, health, agriculture, energy, food, social, cultural and many other essential aspects. The Federation of Global Governments is the place of meeting between Global Governments. The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one for several decades ahead of us, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. All of them are already in operation on a small scale. The Federation of Global Governments is now applying more emphasis on the urgent need from the people of all nations to give everyone essential services. The Global Community has already declared a planetary state of emergency to that effect. [148] The Global Community Peace Movement has declared a planetary state of emergency [149]Planetary state of emergency Today, earthquakes, cyclones and other natural disasters require a rapid and efficient response from the world to help those in needs. We need to be organized and ready to help. We need all nations to be a part of this Global Movement to Help. As a first step to getting help, all nations can and should approve those first three sections on the Scale. The approval would supersede a nation political and physical border anywhere in the world. The Global Protection Agency (GPA) would have the approval from all member nations to give immediate help. Somewhat like an emergency unit but at the global level. That is what those first three sections mean. An efficient and immediate emergency response to help. First, participating member nations need to give their approval to the GPA. The GPA is a global organization much like the World Trade Organization (WTO) for trade between nations, or the World Health Organization (WHO) for health. The GPA offers an efficient emergency response to help. The GPA is a short term solution, an immediate response to help. There are also long term solutions. As with the short term solution, the most significant long term solution is also related to the Scale of Global Rights. Since year 1985 the Global Community has organized the Global Dialogue to probe the Peoples of the world, people from all nations, as to what it will take to make living on Earth sustainable, now and for the next generations. Results were published in our Proceedings. [150] Global Proceedings of the Global Community Now the Scale of Global Rights is a long term solution and is also a part of theGlobal Movement to Help of the Global Community. In itself the Scale was designed to help all life on Earth. What would be preferable is that nations unite amongst themselves to help. Over time, we have seen the creation of the United Nations, the European Union, the South American Community of Nations, and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Except for the UN, these organizations are mainly concerned with trade and economics. The Global Community offers a more meaningful union in the form of nine or more Global Governments. For instance the South American Community of Nations can be a Global Government by simply accepting the Global Constitution as a way of dealing between member nations. A Global Government is concerned not only with economics and trade, but also with the environment, health, agriculture, energy, food, social, cultural and many other essential aspects. The Federation of Global Governments would be the place of meeting between Global Governments. The very first step of the Federation, and maybe the only one, would be the approval of essential services amongst the participating member nations. The Global Community has researched and developed such services and listed them here. All of them are already in operation on a small scale. Federation of Global Governments essential services Global Protection Agency (GPA)[151] Global Protection Agency (GPA) Global Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre [152] Global Emergency, Rescue and Relief Centre Agency of Global Police (AGP) [153] Agency of Global Police (AGP) Global Information Media (GIM)[154] Global Information Media (GIM) Global Dialogue [155] Global Dialogue Press releases [156] Press releases Proclamations [157] Proclamations Newsletters [158] Newsletters Investigative and development reports [159] Investigative and development reports Correspondence [160] Correspondence Proceedings of the Global Dialogue as evaluated by the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) [161] Proceedings of the Global Dialogue as evaluated by the Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) Global Ministries[162] Global Ministries Global peace and disarmament [163] Global peace and disarmament Basic Universal Health Care [164] Basic Universal Health Care Global sustainable agriculture aspects and issues [165] Global sustainable agriculture aspects and issues Global security for all life aspects and issues [166] Global security for all life aspects and issues Global Citizens [167] Global Citizens Global Rights [168] Global Rights Protection of the Global Environment [169] Protection of the Global Environment Global Sustainability aspects and issues [170] Global Sustainability aspects and issues Global businesses and trade [171] Global businesses and trade Research, development and planning [172] Research, development and planning Global justice for all life [173] Global justice for all life The Global Judiciary [174] The Global Judiciary Earth Court of Justice [175] Earth Court of Justice Integrating into our ways of life global standards and practices, and global law for the protection of the global life-support systems [176] Integrating into our ways of life global standards and practices, and global law for the protection of the global life-support systems Global Community Ombudspersons Office [177] Chapter 14.2 B.6 Global Community Ombudspersons Office Our volunteers will help you [178] Our volunteers will help you Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) [179] Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) Protection of the : [180] Protection of the global life-support systems * global life-support systems [181] Security for all life aspects and issues * Earth ecosystems [182] Earth Management aspects and issues * environment[183] Global environmental protection aspects and issues Security for all life, and safety at work [184] Security for all life aspects and issues [185]The third option: Global Law, the need to have it, and the benefits (Part II) [186]Life is protected by Global Law [187]God Law, Nature Law, the teaching of the Soul of Humanity with the teaching of the prophet are fundamental pillars of our Global Law [188]Global Justice for all life on the planet [189]To protect our planetary environment, the global life-support systems, we want to help you concerning all issues. [190]e Global Protection Agency (GPA) [191]Labor force aspects and issues Peace and disarmament [192] Global Peace Movement aspects and issues. [193]Movement for WMDs Disarmament aspects and issues [194]What Peace amongst nations means? Have shelter and basic clothing [195] Primordial human rights are those human rights that individuals have by virtue of their very existence as human beings Global voting [196] The process of global voting on the Internet [197]Global voting on the sovereignty of Tibet and on the Dalai Lama as a peacemaker Sustainable agriculture and food supplies [198] Agriculture and food production aspects and issues [199]Food production for all global communities aspects and issues Water resources protection and drinking fresh water [200] Global Ministry on Water Resources [201]Drinking water, clean air and food for all [202]drinking water issues and rights [203]Drinking water sources Ombudspersons Office [204] Global Constitution Chapter IX The democratic base of Earth Government [205]Global Constitution Chapter XIV Global Community Earth Government with its governing institutions and bodies Global Information Media ( GIM ) [206] Global Information Media ( GIM ) [207]Global Information Media (GIM) daily proclamations Volunteering [208] Global Community volunteers Breathing clean air [209] Drinking water, clean air and food for all Global Community Assessment Centre ( GCAC) [210] Global Community Assessment Centre (GCAC) is the assessment Centre for the Global Community Preventive actions against polluters [211] Preventive actions against polluters aspects and issues. [212]Preventive actions against polluters Eating a balance diet [213] Drinking water, clean air and food for all [214]Food production for all global communities aspects and issues Sustainable use of human and natural resources [215] Building Global Communities for all life aspects and issues [216]Global development management aspects and issues ' Clean ' energy [217] Energy management, issues and rights [218]Sustainable energy Eradicating poverty and hunger [219] Eradicating poverty [220]Eradicating poverty [221]The Global Community must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all Universal health care and education for everyone [222] Universal health care for every Global Community citizen Global Rights [223] Global Rights year one is new impetus of the Global Community to educate everyone about the need for a change in thinking and of doing things amongst all nations. All of the above essentials for this generation and the next ones [224] Overpopulation issues and management [225]Peace amongst nations means having a global vision for humanity and knowing what is needed to give a healthy future to the next generations. Global Movement to Help main listing: * Federation of Global Governments Head Quarters (HQ)[226] Federation of Global Governments Head Quarters [227] Federation of Global Governments * Essential services [228] Main index the Global Movement to Help essential services [229] Essential services * Global Justice Network [230] Global Justice Network [231] Global Justice Network * Global Protection Agency (GPA) [232] Main index of the Global Protection Agency (GPA) [233] Global Protection Agency (GPA) * Global Rights [234] Global Rights * Portal of the Global Community [235] Portal of the Global Community * Portal Global Dialogue 2009 [236] Main website of Global Dialogue 2009 * Global Information Media (GIM) proclamations [237] Global Information Media (GIM) proclamations * Portal of Global Dialogue 2008 [238] Portal of Global Dialogue 2008 * Proceedings of the Global Dialogue [239] Proceedings of the Global Dialogue * Global Peace Movement amongst nations and people[240] Global Peace Movement amongst nations and people * Global Citizens voting on issues [241] Global Community voting on issues The Global Community allows people to take control of their own lives. The Global Community was built from a grassroots process with a vision for humanity that is challenging every person on Earth as well as nation governments. The Global Community has a vision of the people working together building a global civilization including a healthy and rewarding future for the next generations. Global cooperation brings people together for a common future for the good of all. Global governance does not imply a lost of state sovereignty and territorial integrity. A nation government exists within the framework of an effective Global Community protecting common global values and humanity heritage. Global governance gives a new meaning to the notions of territoriality, and non-intervention in a state way of life, and it is about protecting the cultural heritage of a state. Diversity of cultural and ethnic groups is an important aspect of global governance. Global governance is a balance between the rights of states with rights of people, and the interests of nations with the interests of the Global Community, the human family, the global civil society. Global governance is about the rights of states to self-determination in the global context of the Global Community rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states. The political system of an individual country does not have to be a democracy. Political rights of a country belong to that country alone. Democracy is not to be enforced by anyone and to anyone or to any global community. Every community can and should choose the political system of their choice with the understanding of the importance of such a right on the Scale of Global Rights . On the other hand, representatives to the Global Community must be elected democratically in every part of the world. An individual country may have any political system at home but the government of that country will have to ensure (and allow verification by the Global Community) that representatives to the Global Community have been elected democratically. This way, every person in the world can claim the birth right of electing a democratic government to manage Earth: the rights to vote and elect representatives to form the Global Community. The Editor Global Information Media [242]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GD2009/gd2009globaldialogue.htm [243]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/Federation/HQ.htm [244]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GPA/globalcommunity.htm [245]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/ [246]http://globalcommunitywebnet.com/GD2009/Portal2009.htm ___________________________________________________________________________________________ About this e-mail You are receiving this newsletter because you have asked to be included in our list, attended a Global Dialogue event or requested information. To stop receiving this e-mail, please e-mail: [247]globalcommunity@telus.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject. Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail88.gif: 00000001,124fd43e,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailAN.jpeg: 00000001,360315ad,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailPP.jpeg: 00000001,59b6571c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailNM.jpeg: 00000001,7d69988b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail0H.jpeg: 00000001,211cda0d,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailL4.jpeg: 00000001,44d01b7c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailIL.jpeg: 00000001,68835ceb,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailBN.jpeg: 00000001,0c369e6d,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailMV.jpeg: 00000001,2fe9dfdc,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail6A.jpeg: 00000001,6387cfbe,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailRA.jpeg: 00000001,073b1140,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailNB.jpeg: 00000001,2aee52af,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail2K.jpeg: 00000001,4ea1941e,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailCH.jpeg: 00000001,7254d58d,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail1I.jpeg: 00000001,1608170f,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailTA.jpeg: 00000001,39bb587e,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail54.jpeg: 00000001,5d6e99ed,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail2B.jpeg: 00000001,0121db6f,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailCV.jpeg: 00000001,24d51cde,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailD3.jpeg: 00000001,16c94416,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailER.jpeg: 00000001,3a7c8585,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailM9.jpeg: 00000001,5e2fc6f4,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail9L.jpeg: 00000001,01e30876,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailCB.jpeg: 00000001,259649e5,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail5F.jpeg: 00000001,49498b54,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailS8.jpeg: 00000001,6cfcccc3,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail63.jpeg: 00000001,10b00e45,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailSG.jpeg: 00000001,34634fb4,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailRR.jpeg: 00000001,58169123,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailK1.jpeg: 00000001,4a0ab85b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailOQ.jpeg: 00000001,6dbdf9ca,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail20.jpeg: 00000001,11713b4c,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailB3.jpeg: 00000001,35247cbb,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail0O.jpeg: 00000001,58d7be2a,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailLT.jpeg: 00000001,7c8aff99,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailKV.jpeg: 00000001,203e411b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailGT.jpeg: 00000001,43f1828a,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1Tempnsmail1D.jpeg: 00000001,67a4c3f9,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailUE.jpeg: 00000001,0b58057b,00000000,00000000 Embedded Content: CDOCUME~1GermainLOCALS~1TempnsmailFE.jpeg: 00000001,7d4c2ca0,00000000,00000000 4663. 2008-11-13 16:19:22 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Nov 13 16:19:22 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: [Env.faculty] Global Environmental Change Projects to: Claire Reeves Claire, I've not done this for at least a couple of years, so here's a subject. Have a look through and see if you would want to do it. It worked well last time. The 3-5 papers is try to keep the students focussed on specific papers - otherwise it could spiral out of control. Happy for you to check with Corinne if you think necessary. In the MSc course we have the students debating some of the hot topics in Climate Change, and they seem to really enjoy it. Climate Change: Is the science done and dusted? (Phil Jones, p.jones@uea.ac.uk) Most governments around the world have signed up to Kyoto, and it is likely that the US will engage much more readily in many processes after Jan 20, 2009. The UK has a climate change bill which seeks to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, and to produce national risk assessments every 5 years. To almost all in government circles (including the US from Jan 20, 2009), the science is done and dusted. The reporting of climate stories within the media (especially the BBC) is generally one-sided, i.e. the counter argument is rarely made. There is, however, still a vociferous and small majority of climate change skeptics (also called deniers, but these almost entirely exclude any climate-trained climate scientists) who engage the public/govt/media through web sites. Mainstream climate science does not engage with them, and most of these skeptics/deniers do not write regular scientific papers in peer-review journals. The project would address the division through the reporting (in mainstream media and bloggs) of a number (to be decided but 3-5) recent scientific papers. Issues to be addressed include: should a vociferous minority be able to bully mainstream scientists?; should mainstream climate scientists have to change the way they have worked for generations (through the peer-review literature)? and should the science be conducted across blogg sites? Phil Jones will supply a list of possible papers (to select from) and a couple of the main web sites involved. Finally, it's possible I won't be able to make the presentations. I'm down for a meeting that week, but it hasn't been confirmed yet. I could persuade one or two in CRU to stand in for me then if needed. Cheers Phil At 10:44 13/11/2008, you wrote: Dear Colleagues, As in previous years we are looking for around 25 faculty to volunteer to mentor a project for the Global Environmental Change course. This involves proposing a project which includes both a human/social and natural aspect and supervising a group of around 6 students. We expect mentors to spend six hours with the students between end of January and end of March. The project mentors will also be asked to mark two projects and to attend, if possible, the GEC conference scheduled for March 31st, 9am to 4pm. May I remind you that each faculty member is asked to supervise a group project once every three years, so if you have not done this over the last 2 years then you will be expected to volunteer this year. Obviously we are happy for people who been mentors in the last 2 years to volunteer again this year. Please can you send a title plus a 2-3 sentence description of the project by the end of Novemeber. Last year's projects are attached to give you an idea of the nature of the projects. If you proposed a project last year which was not used, please let me know if you wish to propose the same project again. Many Thanks, Claire P.S. I have taken over as the coordinator of the Group Projects for this module. Corinne Le Quere is the convenor for the module. ***************************************** Dr. Claire E. Reeves School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: 44-1603-593625 ***************************************** _______________________________________________ Env.faculty mailing list Env.faculty@uea.ac.uk [1]http://www.uea.ac.uk/mailman21/listinfo/env.faculty Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2990. 2008-11-14 14:52:17 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:52:17 +0100 from: Håkan Grudd subject: Re: URGENT request for project support/collaboration to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, funny to receive a mail from you at this moment - I was sitting here deeply in thoughts about the NH tree-ring network, and I was just wondering what your plans were for future work! First, Yes I am certainly willing to support your project and will write a letter a.s.a.p. It has to be next week, though. Second, I would like to get involved in an Advance10k-type project again, but just the northern regions! Hopefully I will have a salary next year (will get decisions in the next couple of weeks) and I will then continue working on improving the Torneträsk record. I would also like to be involved in updating and refining the Siberian records: Is such work going on in Yamal-Urals-Taimyr? and what about the Indigirka data? This is not even published properly as far as I know. Is Malcolm Hughes still working in this region? and why is there no similar multi-millennial records in northern Alaska and Arctic Canada? many questions, and I do not expect you to answer all this :) but I'd like to get together and talk soon. Cheers, Håkan Keith Briffa skrev: Dear Hakan this is a request from us in the hope of getting your support and collaboration for a project we are submitting to the UK NERC , concerned with the "divergence" issue. We would be really pleased if you feel you could support this. It is aimed at providing Tom with a salary for the next 30 months. Please see the attached letter for more details. Thanks Keith. Tim and Tom Very best wishes Keith -- 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/ -- ________________________ Håkan Grudd Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm URLs: [2]www.bbcc.su.se [3]www.ink.su.se Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 E-mail: [4]hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se Personal webpage: [5]http://people.su.se/~hgrud 372. 2008-11-14 20:48:52 ______________________________________________________ cc: Edward Cook date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:48:52 +0700 from: Edward Cook subject: Re: Euro drought atlas - first thoughts to: Keith Briffa Hi Keith, This all sounds good. Richard has suggested that we have the meeting at CRU instead to make the meeting more Euro-centric. I have no problem with that and always love to come over to visit with you in any case. So think about having the meeting at CRU if you are up for it. Richard and I would of course pay for any travel to bring you over to Lamont in any case. Tom too for that matter. I have thought about the problem of funding you have for Tom. I will do whatever I can to see that he continues working with you through your NERC proposal. I am sure it will be great work. It is too late in the near term, but is there any chance of applying for funding through NERC next year to support our collaboration on drought recons over Europe? 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 Nov 14, 2008, at 8:27 PM, Keith Briffa wrote: Ed Point one is that I truly believe all tree-ring data will need to be re-standardised (and perhaps pseudo gridded in a systematic , using signal-free method in the standardisation. It is likely preferable to consider working in consistent period bands (but we could discuss this later) .There is also potential to use signal-free RCS in certain situations . There are excellent drought sensitive and long (Pinus nigra ) that Michael Grabner has/is developing that would compliment other stuff such as Rob's in the Alps. There are low-elevation data in and around Switzerland that are drought sensitive conifers that the Swiss group and Italians/French have developed (paper I sent you before) . There is also the wealth of oak data many unpublished ( but of which many in our archive). These will need special attention to objectively re-process, group and grid - especially the sub-fossil data. The work should explore further the validity of the sc versus non-sc PDSI and other precipitation variables. Of course you would be mad and wrong not to invite/involve Jan's group - you want them much more than you need , say Rob. Yes I like Rob more than certain of the Swiss/German group - that is my problem and not any one else and least of all yours. David Frank is a great guy. The other straight up fact is that I basically have no travel support - or funds to support Tom Melvin , the latter after next year. If he was to do much - and frankly he would have to crank through the processing as I am genuinely virtually full time teaching/administration/ etc. these days, he will need salary. This is the reason I am submitting (if I gets it written - no it has to) a UK NERC proposal by the end of next week (on the divergence issue) and I will be putting you down as a suggested referee - NERC often ignore these suggestions - but if you get it you need to grade it top for importance and quality etc . More later on this . Have to rush Keith PS you are always, always welcome here and at our home whenever and for as long as you wish whatever transpires. cheers Keith At 06:50 14/11/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, I'm sitting in Bangkok thinking about how we must proceed to produce gridded drought recons over Europe, north Africa, and over into Turkey. After his visit with you, Richard indicated that you are keen to get started, although with some reservations about how good the European tree-ring data will be for the task. That we can address when the time comes to do direct calibration/verification against gridded PDSI. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic on how well we will do, but maybe you will be surprised by that too. But first we must find a way to put together the tree-ring network in as complete a fashion as possible. I am confident that we can get Ramzi Touchan and the Cornell group (Sturt Manning and Carol Griggs) involved. That will provide a lot of new data to augment what you can get your hands on along the Mediterranean Rim and elsewhere south of the Alps. I think I might be able to get some Turkey tree-ring scientists involved too (e.g. Nesibe Kose). Sasha Gershunov from Scripps also indicates to me that he has some contacts in Georgia that may enable us to get some tree-ring data from there too. North of the Alps is where we are totally dependent on what you and others can provide in the way of tree-ring data. What I want to do is hold a meeting at Lamont with determine how best to develop the tree-ring network. My usual travel plans make it impossible for me to do so before late-April or May 2009. Maybe that is just as well to give us time to get organized. Those who would be invited would be those with tree-ring data to contribute to the effort and be part of the overall effort at various levels. Besides you, who do you suggest from Europe? Rob Wilson? He would be fine with me. I would also like to invite someone from WSL too because Esper and his group have been very active in getting/developing tree-ring data sets. I know you have issues with Esper, so you will have to be totally honest about whether or not you would like him to be invited. Dave Frank is a good alternate in my opinion. I am not sure we can easily avoid inviting one or the other. Any other names you can suggest? We don't want it to be a big meeting. Mainly just one for organizing how to compile the tree-ring data sets we need for the network. Of course, another topic will be how to standardize the tree-ring data and who will do it. I would of course be pleased for you and Tom to take on that challenge, with me involved as much as I am able to or am needed. I would be happy to come over to CRU to work with you guys on that effort. So please let me know your thoughts on this email. It is only to you at this stage so that we can have frank discussions on how to proceed along the lines I have described here. 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 ================================== -- 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/ 2232. 2008-11-17 13:49:58 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Jones, Phil" , "Kennedy, John" date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:49:58 -0500 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: JGR Comment to: David Parker Great. Thanks, David. I have two minor comments. One is where you state the data are "almost independent". Almost begs a question, which is partially answered later. I wonder if "essentially independent" would be better. The other point that might be missed by some readers is that no station appeared in both analyses. So perhaps working in a line saying, "not only do these analyses use completely different stations but " the adjustments .... The second point is about the text about Hale et al. 2008. To nearly quote a comment that you, David, made about something I wrote during an AOPC meeting (back in the good old days when Mike Manton had us up writing things until the wee hours), I think 62 words may be a tad long for a single sentence. Also, do you want to be explicit in saying that comparison to a likely inhomogeneous data set is a serious flaw? Whatever you choose to do or not do on these points is fine with me. John, thank you for the sparser sampling experiment. Regards, Tom David Parker said the following on 11/17/2008 1:06 PM: > Phil, Tom, John > > Now that John has done the new sparser-sampling experiment, I am > attaching a revised version of our Comment: it has a new Fig. 1 and > tracked amendments to the text to reflect this and the reviewers > comments. Also attached is my response to the reviewers, and a pdf of > Fig. 1 supplied by John with a map demonstrating the sub-sampling. > > Comments welcome! > > Thanks > > David > > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 684. 2008-11-17 15:05:28 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tom Melvin date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:05:28 +0000 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: URGENT request for project support/collaboration to: Håkan Grudd At 13:52 14/11/2008, you wrote: >Hi Keith, >funny to receive a mail from you at this moment >- I was sitting here deeply in thoughts about >the NH tree-ring network, and I was just >wondering what your plans were for future work! > >First, Yes I am certainly willing to support >your project and will write a letter a.s.a.p. It has to be next week, though. Hakan thank you indeed for this - perhaps you could stress that IPCC said this really important stuff also. >Second, I would like to get involved in an >Advance10k-type project again, but just the >northern regions! Hopefully I will have a salary >next year (will get decisions in the next couple >of weeks) and I will then continue working on improving the Torneträsk record. That would be fantastic - and we are desperate to work with you >I would also like to be involved in updating and >refining the Siberian records: Is such work >going on in Yamal-Urals-Taimyr? and what about >the Indigirka data? This is not even published >properly as far as I know. Is Malcolm Hughes still working in this region? Malcolm has some work continuing I believe - but small scale and I do not know about his future east Siberian publication plans. He certainly has data that go back further than the series he published in the Holocene. We will have to publish some of these soon in the context of that Royal Society paper. I have agreed to publish the Swedish data and some Russian data (with your ok I believe) by the end of this year. Of course the work for the large Russian review (standardisation and calibration effects ) is done and waiting me writing it up! >and why is there no similar multi-millennial >records in northern Alaska and Arctic Canada? They do not seem to focus on sub-fossil sources in lakes/bogs. >many questions, and I do not expect you to >answer all this :) but I'd like to get together and talk soon. We do need to talk because we also need to revisit the Tornetrask divergence ides - what do you think of the section on this in the paper we referred to in the letter? very best wishes - don't forget to do the letter!!! cheers Keith >Cheers, >Håkan > > > >Keith Briffa skrev: >>Dear Hakan >>this is a request from us in the hope of >>getting your support and collaboration for a >>project we are submitting to the UK NERC , >>concerned with the "divergence" issue. We would >>be really pleased if you feel you could support >>this. It is aimed at providing Tom with a >>salary for the next 30 months. Please see the >>attached letter for more details. Thanks >>Keith. Tim and Tom >> >> >>Very best wishes >>Keith >> >>-- >>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/ > > >-- > >________________________ >Håkan Grudd > >Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research >Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology >Stockholm University >SE-106 91 Stockholm >URLs: www.bbcc.su.se www.ink.su.se > >Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 >Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 >E-mail: hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se >Personal webpage: http://people.su.se/~hgrud -- 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/ 3036. 2008-11-17 17:04:27 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 17 17:04:27 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: GHCN to: Gavin Schmidt Gavin, First the figures are just for you - don't pass on!!! I don't normally see these. I just asked my MOHC contact - and he's seen the furore on the blogs. Why did the Daily Telegraph run with the story - it's all back to their readers thinking the UK is run by another country! These 3 paras (below) are from the GHCN web site. They appear to be the only mention I can see of the WMO CLIMAT network on a web site. The rigorous QC that is being talked about is done in retrospect. They don't do much in real time - except an outlier check. Anyway - the CLIMAT network is part of the GTS. The members (NMSs) send their monthly averages/total around the other NMSs on the 4th and the 18-20th of the month afterwards. Few seem to adhere to these dates much these days, but the aim is to send the data around twice in the following month. Data comes in code like everything else on the GTS, so a few centres (probably a handful, NOAA/CPC, MOHC, MeteoFrance, DWD, Roshydromet, CMA, JMA and the Australians) that are doing analyses for weather forecasts have the software to pick out the CLIMAT data and put it somewhere. At the same time these same centres are taking the synop data off the system and summing it to months - producing flags of how much was missing. At the MOHC they compare the CLIMAT message with the monthly calculated average/total. If they are close they accept the CLIMAT. Some countries don't use the mean of max and min (which the synops provide) to calculate the mean, so it is important to use the CLIMAT as this is likely to ensure continuity. If they don't agree they check the flags and there needs to be a bit of human intervention. The figures are examples for this October. What often happens is that countries send out the same data for the following month. This happens mostly in developing countries, as a few haven't yet got software to produce the CLIMAT data in the correct format. There is WMO software to produce these from a wide variety of possible formats the countries might be using. Some seem to do this by overwriting the files from the previous month. They add in the correct data, but then forget to save the revised file. Canada did this a few years ago - but they sent the correct data around a day later and again the second time, after they got told by someone at MOHC. My guess here is that NOAA didn't screw up, but that Russia did. For all countries except Russia, all data for that country comes out together. For Russia it comes out in regions - well it is a big place! Trying to prove this would need some Russian help - Pasha Groisman? - but there isn't much point. The fact that all the affected data were from one Russian region suggests to me it was that region. Probably not of much use to an FAQ! Cheers Phil The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN-Monthly) data base contains historical temperature, precipitation, and pressure data for thousands of land stations worldwide. The period of record varies from station to station, with several thousand extending back to 1950 and several hundred being updated monthly via CLIMAT reports. The data are available without charge through NCDCs anonymous FTP service. Both historical and near-real-time GHCN data undergo rigorous quality assurance reviews. These reviews include preprocessing checks on source data, time series checks that identify spurious changes in the mean and variance, spatial comparisons that verify the accuracy of the climatological mean and the seasonal cycle, and neighbor checks that identify outliers from both a serial and a spatial perspective. GHCN-Monthly is used operationally by NCDC to monitor long-term trends in temperature and precipitation. It has also been employed in several international climate assessments, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, and the "State of the Climate" report published annually by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. At 12:56 17/11/2008, you wrote: thanks. Actually, I don't think that many people have any idea how the NWS's send out data, what data they send out, what they don't and how these things are collated. Perhaps you'd like to send me some notes on this that I could write up as a FAQ? Won't change anything much, but it would be a handy reference.... gavin On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 07:53, Phil Jones wrote: > > Gavin, > I may be getting touchy but the CA thread on the HadCRUt October 08 > data seems full of snidey comments. Nice to see that they have very little > right. Where have they got the idea that the data each month come > from GHCN? There are the daily synops and the CLIMAT messages - > nothing to do with GHCN. All they have to do is read Brohan et al (2006) > and they can see this - and how we merge the land and marine! They > seem to have no idea about the Global Telecommunications System. > Anyway - expecting the proofs of the Wengen paper any day now. > Have already sent back loads of updated references and sorted out almost all > of the other reference problems. > When the paper comes out - not sure if The Holocene do online first - > happy for you to point out the publication dates (date first > received etc) when > they scream that they sorted out that diagram from the first IPCC Report. > > Don't know how you find the time to do all this responding- keep it up! > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3719. 2008-11-19 08:11:37 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:11:37 +0000 from: Rob Wilson subject: Re: a request to: Keith Briffa , Tom Melvin Hi Keith and Tom, first, please note that I am based at St. Andrews now - so e-mail and address (in signature) are different. Thanks for considering me as a "fair" referee. I am also busy putting together a proposal with Neil Loader for Dec 1st so I am aware how tense the next few weeks could be. What you propose is indeed relevant, especially w.r.t. the MXD data and the regional 'divergence' noted in your 2002 paper. I would be happy to be a referee, but I think it only fair if I make some brief critical comments at this early stage w.r.t. your project: 1. The 400 chronology database you plan to work with is somewhat outdated and many of the chronologies do not go into the 1990s. I think this could be a potential problem and any reviewer might be quite sceptical to see yet more money put into a data-set which has been processed multiple times. Importantly, with greatest warming being in the last decade or so, a crucial test for any divergence related project would be to assess whether the chronologies can model that recent warming. This will likely not be possible with the current data set. It may be crucial to add in to your proposal an update section as well. I understand that it is not possible to update all 400 sites, but from the current data that are available, it is possible to identify those sites with the strongest climate signal. Surely the project could be greatly strengthened if some of these keys sites could be updated to present. There is certainly much more data out there than the original 400 sites and you may need to consider expanding your analysis beyond the original data-set. 2. I think it should be made clear that divergence is not noted everywhere and some areas appear to be worse than others. E.g. Alaska and the NW Territories appear to be a particular hot spot. However, in the Millennium project we have not noted any calibration issues in the recent period. There are also a whole ream of potential factors that could lead to a divergence phenomenon. Yes, your wording is carefully worded (e.g. "overcoming at least part of the apparent divergence "), but I think you must consider all possible factors in your analysis. We certainly should be careful in taking the instrumental data as bible truth in some locations. There is also my Tmax hypothesis (which I know you do not agree with) which has now been tested in both the Pyrenees and N. Yukon and appears to hold in those regions where there is a significant difference in turned between Tmin and Tmax (something that I have been meaning to test in a more global way). 3. You need to carefully rationalise why you need 30 months for such a project. Even if you processed one RW and one MXD chronology per day, there would be a lot of time left over and I am sure the chronologies can be processed much quicker than that. I hope these comments are of some use regards Rob Keith Briffa wrote: Dear Rob Please see attached letter Keith -- 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/ -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. 2008-11-19 09:06:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 09:06:55 -0000 from: "Carey, Gerald" subject: Re Banco Santander to: "Keith Briffa" Dear Keith, You have a holding of 347 Banco Santander in your portfolio.The bank is currently holding a rights issue which I do not advise taking up because of the great uncertainty which still affects all banks.If the rights are lapsed,under the terms of the offer,no proceeds will be paid.However,I am able to sell the rights in the market.The current price is 24p.The proceeds would be small at about £83.We would not make any charges.Rather ridiculously,the timetable for the offer is very short and I need your instruction more or less immediately. Your sister also has 347 shares and my advice for her is the same.Should I try and contact her or do you feel she will be happy for me just to act ? Kind Regards. Gerald. Gerald Carey Divisional Director-Private Clients Tel:0845 213 3288 Fax:0845 213 3627 e mail:gerald.carey@brewin.co.uk This e-mail message, and any attachment, are intended only for and are confidential to the addressee. Any views expressed in this e-mail message or in any attachment are solely those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc or Brewin Dolphin Limited. 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 intended addressee who acts or refrains from acting on any information in this e-mail message or any attachment. Though our e-mail messages are checked for viruses, we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted by, through, with or in this e-mail message. Recipients are expected to take their own steps to ensure that e-mail messages are checked for, and free from, viruses. Brewin Dolphin Holdings Plc, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2685806, is the parent company of Brewin Dolphin Limited. Brewin Dolphin Limited is a member of the London Stock Exchange, authorised and regulated by The Financial Services Authority No. 124444, regulated under the Financial Service (Jersey) Law 1998 by the Jersey Financial Services Commission for the conduct of business in Jersey, and regulated in Guernsey by the Guernsey Financial Services Commission for the provision of investment business, registered office at 12 Smithfield Street, London, EC1A 9BD, registered in England and Wales Company No. 2135876. VAT No. GB-609 8994 69. 19/11/200809:06:57 2150. 2008-11-19 10:17:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:17:16 +0000 from: "Douglas Maraun" subject: New experiments to: "Tim Osborn" Hi Tim, the new experiments with fixed solar and volcanci forcing are done. However, sample variability seems to be quite high, especially for the 90% confidence intervals. In several cases the intervals for different noise levels are even reversed in their order and changes compared to the old experiments are not so obvious from these plots, only the land-ocean heat exchange seems to be much better constrained. I have got an account on the cluster now, all the packages we need are installed (I did this mainly for the cross validation of the FREE model), and for a final version we could run all experiments again with 1000 instead of 100 realisations. Cheers, Douglas -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Douglas Maraun Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia +44 1603 59 3857 http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~douglas 229. 2008-11-19 14:31:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Nov 19 14:31:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: NI grid cells plus more to: C G Kilsby , Colin Harpham , "'vassilis glenis'" Chris et al, Below is an email from Dan Hollis of MOHC. It nicely explains why the grids differ for different periods. They are aware of it, regret it, but we now that we'll have to deal it. Colin knows what he has to do - this is to extend the MOHC mean T and DTR grids for the 5km buffer around the coastline of Britain. This is fine and won't take too long to do. Extrapolation is going to be not more than 10km and probably only 5km. The problem is Northern Ireland !!! The reason Colin asked Vaz to run the WG for the control period (1961-90) was to get the averages that the WG produces for mean T and DTR for all the UK points that the WG will simulate. With these we'll produce an offset file that will adjust these to what MOHC has for each 5km square. These offsets are mostly in the range +/- 2 deg C, but are slightly larger around some coasts. These offsets will be an additional number(s) to add to all generated data from the WG. The effect is to force the WG to get almost the same 1961-90 average as MOHC produces for each 5 by 5km square. If we'd been able to use daily grids on the 5km scale (which MOHC still have yet to produce) we wouldn't needed to have gone down the route with the interpolation from 115 stations. I explained why the 115 stations don't do as well as hoped at the Nov 3 PMG. Anyway - all this is background. We have time to do it, it won't take long so we're doing it. We're only doing it for Tmean and DTR. It's not an issue with sunshine, Vapour pressure etc. It related to frost hollows and coastal effects. It may be that MOHC isn't exactly right, but if we agree with them we can't be criticized on that score. Back to Northern Ireland! See the map that Colin sent earlier. There are 100s of points that are in your grid which are in Ireland (Eire)!! You have all of County Monaghan for example. I'm sure DEFRA wouldn't want the package to work beyond the NI border. There is one 5km point that should be in that you do not have. This is in the extreme west of Co. Fermanagh. Maybe we'll be lucky and no-one in Belleek will try and get any data! Colin reckons that if you remove the points wholly in Eire, then send him the revised set of co-ordinates he can produce the set of offsets needed. He can't extrapolate easily to your red circles (see earlier attachment) as some are way away for the true border. Also we shouldn't be offering points outside NI - even if they are part of cross-border catchments. Cheers Phil X-Authentication-Warning: ueamailgate02.uea.ac.uk: defang set sender to using -f X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,631,1220227200"; d="scan'208,217";a="45193" Subject: RE: 5km monthly temperature data Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:24:17 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: 5km monthly temperature data Thread-Index: AclJiQ1hd1gn+26wTPmIVwvaOEGhqwAquvrw From: "Hollis, Dan" To: "Colin Harpham" Cc: "Phil Jones" , "Prior, John" X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] HTML_MESSAGE,SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 12919341 - 4a8d00af4c13 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12919341&m=4a8d00af4c13&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12919341&m=4a8d00af4c13&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=12919341&m=4a8d00af4c13&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 127.0.0.1 Hello Colin, I admit that we have been inconsistent in our use of land/sea masks. Ian Simpson at UEA has highlighted similar issues with the monthly and daily rainfall grids, where three separate masks have been applied. I think this has come about because the various grids have been generated as a result of a several different projects and different decisions were made in each project. This is clearly unsatisfactory and something I'm trying to sort out. The short answer to your question is that the 1961-2000 data are not available for a larger area. The background to this is as follows: - When we initially generate our grids they actually cover a much larger area than just UK land areas. - However, we do not use any data for marine areas in the interpolation and therefore consider the values over the sea to be of low quality. Consequently, prior to releasing the data to users, we apply a land/sea mask to remove the sea data points from the grid (albeit inconsistently!). - Grids that have been produced in the last few years have been archived without any masking. The mask is applied at the time the data are extracted from the archive. In the case of the pre-1961 and post-2000 temperature grids this mask included a 5km buffer around the coastline. - Unfortunately, all of the monthly and annual grids for 1961-2000 (i.e. the datasets produced 6 years ago for UKCIP02) were archived with a land/sea mask already applied. A coastal buffer was not included so consequently the area is smaller than for the more recent data (but should still cover all land areas). Short of re-running all of the UKCIP02 analysis (which we have no plans to do in the near future), there is no way to 'unmask' these grids. At some point in 2009, hopefully to coincide with the eventual release of UKCIP08, we will be upgrading the gridded data download page on our web site. The main enhancements will be the addition of daily temperature grids for 1960-2006, daily rainfall metrics for the same period (the daily rainfall grids themselves are a commercial product and will not be available for download) and time series versions of both the monthly and daily data. As the lack of a consistent land/sea mask is clearly causing users such as yourself and Ian some headaches, my intention is to ensure that all of the data available for download covers tha same area. Given that we are tied to the UKCIP02 mask for the 1961-2000 monthly data I am therefore using this for all other datasets. You will see from this that the area of the pre-1961 and post-2000 grids will actually decrease in order to achieve this rationalisation. Given the concerns raised in your email I suspect you will find this unsatisfactory but I hope you will understand why we are making these changes. On a related topic, if either you or any of your colleagues at UEA have requirements for European-wide gridded climate data then you may be interested in the Showcase-EUROGRID project. This is a demonstration project looking at the practicalities of generating and distributing European-wide gridded data. Part of the work is a requirements-gathering exercise and there is a short questionnaire available for download on the project website ([4]http://www.e-grid.eu/public/ - the link is near the bottom of the page). If you or anyone else at UEA would like to fill in the questionnaire then that would be much appreciated. Please send them to our group inbox ([5]NCIC@metoffice.gov.uk) rather than to me, ideally by the end of next week. Thanks. If you have any further questions then please get in touch. Regards, Dan Dan Hollis Climatologist Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 886780 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 E-mail: dan.hollis@metoffice.gov.uk [6]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Colin Harpham [[7]mailto:c.harpham@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 18 November 2008 14:22 To: Prior, John Cc: Hollis, Dan; Phil Jones Subject: 5km monthly temperature data Dear John, I am working on the UKCIP08 weather generator which is interpolated to a 5km OSGB grid using 115 station data. In order to provide improved urban accuracy (our 115 stations include few if any urban) I have calculated offsets from the 5km MO monthly temperature data to adjust the weather generator runs, this works well. Unfortunately we have a problem, the 1961-2000 temperature data covers less land area than our grid. I have scrutinised earlier and later MO 5km data and both have larger areas of land coverage than the 1961-2000 data by as much as two extra cells round the coast. Has the 1961-2000 been updated in line with the earlier and later data format? If so how could I obtain it? Regards, Colin Harpham Dr Colin Harpham Senior Research Associate Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ UK Tel: +44 -1603 593857 Fax: +44 -1603 507784 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1740. 2008-11-19 15:49:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:49:48 -0600 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Debate with Fred Singer at Argonne National Lab on Monday, 24 to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu Dear Colleague: I will debate Fred Singer at Argonne National Lab next Monday, 24 November. Fred has provided the attached report, "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate," for the attendees to the debate. The points made in this report are listed in the second attached document. I solicit your contribution on rebutting these very wide-ranging points. It would be most useful if you would add your rebuttal comments to the second attached document and send them to me. I thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. Regards, Michael Schlesinger Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Nature Not Human Activity.pdf" Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\NIPCC Report.doc" 4988. 2008-11-20 14:49:25 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:49:25 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: vap and vaplev to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk Hi Tim, On 20 Nov 2008, at 14:28, Tim Osborn wrote: > Hi Harry, > > I'll be back in on Friday and hopefully we can chat about the QUEST > meeting that I half went to on Wednesday... Er, sorry - I'm out on Friday (tomorrow). Thought I'd mentioned it, obviously not. Can chat next week (M/T/W/T/F), on the phone later today, or drop me a one-para summary to chew on over the weekend? > In the meantime, thanks for calculating the vaplev for cccma_cgcmNNN. > I've plotted maps for the four seasons, comparing vap and vaplev > patterns. > > Please see the attached files. > > 1 page per season. Top-left is vap pattern. Top-right is vaplev. > Bottom-left is the difference (vaplev-vap). Bottom-right is a scatter > plot showing vap vs. vaplev values for all grid boxes, plus the > correlation and slope of a best-fit (least squares regression) > line. The > black line is the perfect y=x line, while the blue line is the best- > fit > line. > > Look at ...landandsea.pdf first. Pattern correlations 0.98, 0.97, > 0.94, > 0.97. Clearly very good. The difference plots however (here green > is a > good match, grey and pale blue are ok, anything else is not so > good) show > problems over the land, especially in the subtropics, moving north- > south > with the seasons. > > ...land.pdf shows the same but just the land. The scatter plot is > now not > so good, correlations 0.94, 0.92, 0.88, 0.93. They're still not bad > though, and on the scatter plots there are very many red circles > superimposed near the line y=x. But still there are quite a few > above the > line, indicating vaplev is underestimating the increase in vap, > often by > 50% or more. > > I presume there must be some change in soil moisture in these > regions that > makes the real near-surface vap change rather differently from the > vap in > the lowest two levels of the model from which vaplev is calculated. Sounds plausible. It's worth remembering that the original vap was erroneously calculated using sea-level pressure, (not surface pressure), so is that a better explanation of the land differences? > Can I just check with you, did you extrapolate hus from the two lowest > levels to approximate huss (surface hum) and then calculate surface > vap. > Or did you calculate vap from the two lowest hus levels and then > extrapolate from these vaps to get surface vap? The former is > probably > the best one to do, and I think that's what we discussed, but can you > confirm. Yup, derived a surface level specific humidity, then calculated vap using that and the surface pressure value. Extrapolation was from the two layers 'above' the surface pressure value, ie: Surface P Levels Used 1010 1000,925 988 925,850 910 850,700 (etc) I'm glad to see such good correlations, actually. And the 'drift' over land is, as I say, what we should be looking for (as the wrong pressure was used for the huss calculations). Cheers Harry > > Cheers > > Tim > > Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 2623. 2008-11-20 17:22:12 ______________________________________________________ cc: Caspar Ammann , Rob Allan , Kim Cobb , Julia Cole , Edward_Cook , "Rosanne D'Arrigo" , Michael Evans , Michael Gagan , Ricardo García 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 , "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 , "ndavies@moorea.berkeley.edu" , "Francis J. Murphy" date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:22:12 +0000 from: "Abram, Nerilie" subject: Another paper of lecture given at the 2008 Moorea Conference to: Warren White , Henry Diaz Hi everyone, Following up from Warren's email, I've attached a copy of our paper that Janice Lough so kindly presented at the conference in Moorea earlier this year. The paper has just been published in Nature Geoscience and I thought that it might be a good idea to email it around as I'm not sure homw institutions are signed up for the new Nature Geoscience journal. Cheers, Nerilie ______________________________ Nerilie Abram Palaeoclimatologist (ice cores) British Antarctic Survey Natural Environment Research Council email: nabr@bas.ac.uk phone: +44-1223 221539 fax: +44-1223 221279 ______________________________ ________________________________________ From: Warren White [wbwhite@ucsd.edu] Sent: 28 October 2008 19:17 To: Henry Diaz Cc: Caspar Ammann; Rob Allan; Kim Cobb; Julia Cole; Edward_Cook; Rosanne D'Arrigo; Michael Evans; Michael Gagan; Ricardo García 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; 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; ndavies@moorea.berkeley.edu; Francis J. Murphy; Abram, Nerilie Subject: Fwd: GRL paper of lecture given at the 2008 Moorea Conference Dear Colleague, Zhengyu Liu and I just had our "solar- ENSO" paper published in GRL this month. It shows that the 11-year period solar radiative forcing during the 20th Century not only drove the 11-year period QDO signal in tropical Pacific sea surface temperature variability, but the 3.6- year period ENSO signal and the 2.2-yr period QBO signal as well, the latter two signals driven by non-linear processes, together accounting for 51% of the variance in the Nino-3 SST index from 1900-2005. We owe this paper to Joanna Haigh, who spurring us on after she sent me an e-mail questioning the recent work of Jerry Meehl and Harry van Loon. This paper explains an apparent discrepancy; that is, why El Nino and La Nina are both phase locked to the 11-year period solar cycle as Jerry and Harry observed. In this paper, the the 3.6- year period ENSO signal and the 2.2-yr period QBO signal are the third and fifth odd harmonics of the first harmonic 11-yr period QDO response to 11-yr period solar forcing, each of these signals already shown to obey the same delayed action/recharge oscillator in tropical Pacific coupled ocean-atmosphere system. Cheers, Warren Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Abram2008_Nature Geoscience.pdf" 2762. 2008-11-21 15:46:03 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:46:03 -0000 from: "Nigel Arnell" subject: RE: ClimGen vap to: "Tim Osborn" Tim, Thanks - I'll digest this on the way to China. Thanks for your input to the meeting on Wednesday - the meeting was extremely helpful, and I'm really pleased with progress and direction. One immediate question - when do you think you could have the extra scenario data (or code+pattern)? It influences the timing of the rest of the project. Regards Nigel Professor Nigel Arnell Director Walker Institute for Climate System Research University of Reading Earley Gate Reading RG6 6BB UK +44-118-378-7392 www.walker-institute.ac.uk -----Original Message----- From: Tim Osborn [mailto:t.osborn@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 21 November 2008 15:42 To: Nigel Arnell Subject: ClimGen vap Hi Nigel, sorry I had to leave Wednesday's meeting early, but please let me know anything that arose after I left (or at the stakeholder meeting) that needs some input from me. Regarding the VAP scenarios for those GCMs that haven't provided surface humidity output... Harry has now completed his calculations, using specific humidity on pressure levels in the atmosphere, together with the surface pressure (note: different from sea level pressure over the land, of course). Surface pressure is used to find the two lowest pressure levels that are above the land surface, and then to extrapolate from the spec. hum. at these two levels down to the pressure at the land surface, and then convert this estimated surface spec. hum. to surface vapour pressure. This then gets put into the pattern estimator (pooling across multiple ensemble members, averaging into 30-year running means, and regressing against 30-year running mean global temperature change). You probably don't need to know all this detail! Instead, please look at the attached PDF which compares our results for the cccma_cgcm3_1 model where we have both surface and pressure level humidity data -- so we can compare the estimated patterns with the correct surface patterns. One page per season. Top-left is the correct VAP change pattern (hPa per degC of warmning) calculated from model surface humidity (called "v2p"). Top-right is "vaplev" (our estimate from the pressure level humidity). Bottom-left is the difference (vaplev-v2p). Green is essentially zero difference, light blue and grey are small differences. The browns and pinks are those of most concern. Bottom-right is a scatter plot showing v2p vs. vaplev values for all grid boxes, plus the correlation and slope of a best-fit (least squares regression) line. The black line is the perfect y=x line, while the blue line is the best-fit line. I've only shown the land -- the fit is even better over the oceans. Over the land, the pattern correlations are 0.95, 0.93, 0.90, and 0.93 for the four seasons. Very good, but the scatter plots and the difference maps show some significant variations. Most problems are where vaplev has underestimated the correct changes (points above the line in the scatter plot). I've been trying to think why the extrapolation from levels would fail, but can't seem to get an explanation that fits the pattern. For example, some of most extensive differences are over the Mediterranean in JJA. Here this model shows strong summer drying, which leads to decreased soil moisture. If anything I'd expect that the drier soils would mean that near-surface humidity would increase less than away from the surface at the pressure levels, yet the surface VAP patterns shows more increase than the pattern estimated from the pressure level data! What is your opinion about this? Can we use vaplev estimates on the basis of the >0.9 pattern correlations? Are they better than the alternative(s), e.g. the constant RH assumption? Best regards Tim No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.8/1800 - Release Date: 11/19/2008 6:55 PM 5113. 2008-11-24 14:10:02 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:10:02 +0000 from: Thomas Crowley subject: 2008 monthly temps for 30-90N land to: Phil Jones Phil, attached is the file you sent me for 30-90N land temperatures, by month. everything went fine in the conversion except now we discover that 2008 monthly land 30-90N temperatures was dropped, and we are having trouble opening the file again - see attached. do you have those values? if not don't worry about it, but we thought it would be nice to include, if it were already computed but just lost in translation of files. thanks for any help, tom -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. 1850 -2.95 0.56 -1.72 -0.98 -0.93 0.22 0.33 0.58 -0.62 -1.22 -0.45 -0.20 -0.62 1851 0.32 -0.22 -1.12 -0.52 -0.56 -0.04 -0.18 0.16 0.04 0.20 -0.86 -0.55 -0.28 1852 0.04 -0.42 -1.27 -1.98 0.06 0.00 0.20 -0.05 -0.26 -0.56 -0.77 1.15 -0.32 1853 1.05 -1.06 -1.65 -1.08 -0.39 0.10 0.31 0.28 -0.31 -0.18 -0.69 -1.53 -0.43 1854 -0.77 -0.30 -0.08 -0.72 0.34 -0.27 0.81 0.51 0.28 0.56 -0.85 0.47 0.00 1855 -0.19 -1.86 -1.03 0.45 0.19 -0.02 0.32 0.18 -0.17 0.02 -0.80 -2.52 -0.45 1856 -0.26 -0.69 -1.99 -0.12 -0.50 0.60 0.03 -0.26 -0.62 -0.68 -1.87 -0.48 -0.57 1857 -1.48 0.08 -0.84 -1.35 -0.83 -0.18 -0.04 0.33 -0.18 -0.37 -1.09 0.93 -0.42 1858 0.11 -2.05 -1.01 -0.09 -0.25 0.85 0.29 -0.13 0.07 0.29 -2.23 -0.23 -0.37 1859 0.19 0.83 0.38 -0.21 0.28 0.11 0.49 0.22 -0.44 -0.38 -0.27 -1.54 -0.03 1860 0.34 -1.17 -1.66 -0.39 0.03 0.09 -0.19 -0.07 -0.17 -0.35 -1.49 -2.12 -0.60 1861 -2.28 0.59 0.11 -0.94 -1.10 0.29 0.04 0.17 -0.41 -0.27 -0.43 0.08 -0.34 1862 -1.50 -1.74 -0.70 -0.06 0.00 -0.56 -0.43 -0.55 -0.25 -0.40 -1.41 -1.03 -0.72 1863 2.09 0.81 -0.17 -0.13 0.18 -0.37 -0.34 0.03 -0.12 -0.52 -0.04 -0.06 0.11 1864 -1.58 -0.26 -0.41 -0.86 -0.61 0.21 0.06 -0.34 -0.41 -1.69 -1.60 -1.58 -0.76 1865 0.11 -1.80 -1.90 -0.04 0.42 -0.17 0.36 -0.29 0.69 -0.61 0.18 -0.55 -0.30 1866 0.99 -0.38 -1.00 0.15 -1.20 0.08 0.01 -0.60 -0.05 -1.01 -0.64 -0.26 -0.33 1867 -0.97 0.96 -2.17 -0.42 -1.40 -0.34 -0.59 -0.13 -0.03 -0.32 -0.73 -1.19 -0.61 1868 -1.54 -0.81 0.02 -0.68 0.41 0.27 0.69 0.17 -0.46 -0.49 -1.50 -0.06 -0.33 1869 0.13 1.36 -1.56 -0.32 -0.43 -0.56 0.09 -0.03 -0.12 -1.35 -0.89 -0.48 -0.35 1870 0.43 -1.35 -1.50 -0.32 0.46 0.23 0.54 -0.48 -0.33 -0.75 0.06 -2.24 -0.44 1871 -1.20 -1.46 0.46 -0.05 -0.58 -0.32 0.20 0.20 -0.70 -0.65 -1.64 -1.75 -0.63 1872 -0.16 -0.34 -0.62 0.22 0.33 0.07 0.15 0.01 -0.15 -0.20 -0.79 -0.80 -0.19 1873 0.31 -0.78 -0.50 -1.21 -0.90 0.14 0.25 0.15 -0.66 -0.71 -0.67 0.05 -0.38 1874 0.90 -0.35 -1.16 -0.76 -0.61 0.17 0.21 -0.21 0.17 -0.08 -0.96 -0.50 -0.26 1875 -1.68 -2.45 -2.25 -1.35 0.05 0.24 -0.17 -0.20 -0.69 -1.03 -1.58 -0.98 -1.01 1876 -0.11 0.00 -0.95 -0.36 -1.05 0.22 0.35 0.17 -0.33 -0.59 -1.59 -1.99 -0.52 1877 -0.21 0.33 -1.12 -0.94 -0.97 0.08 0.06 0.11 -0.53 -0.91 0.06 0.64 -0.28 1878 -0.13 1.04 0.84 0.71 -0.33 0.17 0.08 0.37 0.18 0.14 -0.01 -1.20 0.16 1879 -0.55 -0.24 -0.22 -0.57 -0.35 -0.20 -0.18 -0.09 -0.34 0.22 -1.15 -1.70 -0.45 1880 0.55 -0.16 -0.74 -0.32 0.15 -0.11 -0.03 0.03 -0.08 -1.14 -1.91 -1.03 -0.40 1881 -1.59 -0.92 -0.98 -0.59 0.06 -0.42 0.12 0.16 -0.10 -0.94 -0.70 0.17 -0.48 1882 1.17 0.66 0.52 -0.66 -0.71 -0.44 -0.30 0.04 -0.20 -0.64 -1.08 -1.21 -0.24 1883 -1.49 -1.10 -1.48 -0.81 -0.55 0.05 -0.08 -0.45 -0.35 -0.52 -0.31 0.09 -0.58 1884 -0.30 -0.16 -1.05 -1.35 -0.74 -0.82 -0.54 -0.74 -0.39 -0.22 -1.18 -0.52 -0.67 1885 -1.82 -0.56 -0.75 -0.66 -0.99 -0.65 -0.10 -0.88 -0.62 -0.92 -0.74 0.08 -0.72 1886 -1.45 -1.40 -1.38 -0.24 -0.16 -0.56 -0.07 -0.13 -0.13 -0.40 -0.68 -0.03 -0.55 1887 -1.10 -0.83 -0.55 -0.67 0.19 -0.15 0.13 -0.53 -0.04 -1.12 -0.44 -0.68 -0.48 1888 -1.64 -1.29 -2.04 -0.30 -0.59 -0.38 -0.32 -0.50 -0.29 -0.60 -0.87 -0.46 -0.77 1889 -0.98 -0.85 -0.64 0.04 0.10 0.02 -0.24 -0.23 -0.68 -0.40 -0.97 0.19 -0.39 1890 0.09 -0.42 -0.50 0.05 -0.46 -0.12 -0.12 -0.15 -0.19 -0.51 -0.70 -0.71 -0.31 1891 -1.00 -1.12 -0.89 -0.77 -0.48 -0.52 -0.42 -0.35 0.12 -0.47 -1.40 0.69 -0.55 1892 -1.00 -0.11 -1.44 -1.07 -0.68 -0.12 -0.35 -0.15 0.19 -0.25 -1.05 -1.65 -0.64 1893 -3.25 -2.02 -0.46 -0.65 -0.78 -0.06 0.03 -0.23 -0.23 -0.06 -0.56 -0.17 -0.70 1894 -0.77 -0.26 0.15 -0.14 -0.17 -0.32 0.08 -0.01 -0.47 -0.34 -0.50 -0.34 -0.26 1895 -1.49 -2.24 -0.92 -0.09 -0.23 -0.36 -0.43 -0.37 0.13 -0.47 -0.39 -0.33 -0.60 1896 -0.40 -0.17 -1.23 -1.13 -0.16 0.21 -0.04 -0.21 -0.36 -0.18 -1.60 -0.26 -0.46 1897 -0.97 -0.57 -1.37 -0.25 0.14 -0.30 0.05 -0.01 0.33 -0.19 -0.91 -0.94 -0.42 1898 0.80 -0.38 -2.03 -0.72 -0.44 -0.22 -0.13 0.16 0.09 -0.63 -0.42 0.10 -0.32 1899 0.66 -1.06 -1.41 -0.18 -0.43 -0.39 -0.15 -0.25 0.05 0.17 1.05 -1.27 -0.27 1900 -0.49 -0.89 -0.72 -0.55 -0.06 -0.03 -0.22 0.05 -0.09 0.70 -0.41 0.49 -0.18 1901 -0.23 -0.72 0.07 0.13 -0.11 0.04 0.39 0.21 -0.36 -0.19 -0.47 -0.65 -0.16 1902 0.55 0.17 -0.51 -0.97 -0.89 -0.73 -0.71 -0.46 -0.59 -0.69 -1.10 -1.43 -0.61 1903 0.20 0.58 -0.12 -0.62 -0.63 -0.85 -0.71 -0.58 -0.43 -0.50 -0.56 -0.72 -0.41 1904 -0.94 -0.60 -1.02 -0.83 -0.38 -0.54 -0.56 -0.39 -0.63 -0.23 0.04 -0.22 -0.52 1905 -0.71 -1.48 -0.37 -0.93 -0.54 -0.32 -0.23 -0.26 0.06 -0.63 0.24 0.17 -0.42 1906 0.16 -0.86 -0.65 0.29 -0.13 -0.10 -0.20 -0.03 -0.23 -0.19 -0.61 0.11 -0.20 1907 -1.12 -1.14 -0.46 -1.20 -1.28 -1.01 -0.66 -0.57 -0.42 -0.02 -1.18 -0.53 -0.80 1908 -0.19 -0.28 -1.30 -0.80 -0.44 -0.40 -0.33 -0.48 -0.09 -0.63 -0.98 -0.51 -0.54 1909 -0.89 -0.80 -1.43 -1.01 -0.92 -0.50 -0.45 -0.02 0.13 -0.04 0.27 -0.72 -0.53 1910 0.29 -0.36 0.36 0.05 -0.40 -0.43 -0.14 -0.41 -0.35 -0.07 -0.94 -0.64 -0.25 1911 -0.79 -1.18 -0.90 -0.81 -0.20 -0.06 -0.18 -0.13 -0.11 -0.46 -0.31 0.03 -0.42 1912 -0.96 -0.17 -1.06 -0.68 -0.44 -0.19 -0.79 -1.03 -1.19 -1.47 -0.73 -0.28 -0.75 1913 -0.26 -1.20 -0.50 -0.29 -0.75 -0.68 -0.74 -0.17 -0.36 -0.58 0.73 0.78 -0.34 1914 0.98 0.32 -0.09 -0.38 -0.11 -0.27 -0.11 -0.19 -0.31 -0.04 -0.72 -0.71 -0.14 1915 -0.12 0.46 -1.18 0.18 -0.48 -0.55 -0.41 -0.47 -0.35 -0.63 -0.16 0.00 -0.31 1916 0.21 -0.07 -1.25 -0.48 -0.65 -0.70 0.01 -0.18 -0.61 -0.38 -0.17 -1.34 -0.47 1917 -0.90 -1.81 -1.76 -0.83 -1.17 -0.35 -0.06 -0.07 0.09 -0.72 0.17 -1.95 -0.78 1918 -0.71 -0.42 -0.23 -0.64 -0.80 -0.48 -0.52 -0.35 -0.32 0.38 -0.51 -0.54 -0.43 1919 -0.23 -0.62 -1.24 -0.31 -0.84 -0.33 -0.18 -0.13 0.32 -0.55 -1.62 -1.16 -0.57 1920 0.02 -0.47 0.24 -0.52 0.04 -0.33 -0.04 -0.11 -0.02 -0.53 -1.05 -0.73 -0.29 1921 1.15 0.13 0.42 0.21 0.12 0.22 0.27 -0.18 -0.11 0.09 -1.07 -0.10 0.10 1922 -1.12 -1.06 -0.43 -0.35 0.07 0.10 -0.25 -0.06 -0.09 -0.22 -0.21 -0.13 -0.31 1923 0.48 -1.27 -0.74 -1.29 -0.43 -0.40 -0.08 -0.28 0.11 0.44 0.69 0.52 -0.19 1924 -0.81 -0.62 -1.02 -0.84 -0.37 -0.17 -0.21 -0.10 0.09 0.08 0.19 -0.88 -0.39 1925 0.20 0.58 -0.10 0.14 -0.21 -0.09 -0.07 0.12 0.22 -0.65 -0.01 0.45 0.05 1926 1.00 0.72 0.17 -0.52 -0.45 -0.38 -0.38 -0.14 -0.10 -0.14 0.39 -0.65 -0.04 1927 -0.34 -0.05 -0.51 -0.41 -0.47 -0.16 0.28 -0.02 0.32 0.53 -0.15 -1.76 -0.23 1928 0.37 0.03 -1.15 -0.82 -0.22 -0.70 -0.06 -0.21 -0.18 -0.02 0.33 0.02 -0.22 1929 -1.48 -2.98 -0.57 -0.94 -0.31 -0.45 -0.16 0.18 -0.20 0.33 0.23 -1.00 -0.61 1930 -0.32 -0.05 0.33 -0.03 -0.31 -0.04 0.24 0.54 -0.15 -0.11 0.38 -0.15 0.03 1931 -0.01 -1.05 -0.60 -0.63 -0.37 0.16 0.43 0.21 0.33 0.59 0.28 0.13 -0.04 1932 1.61 -0.78 -1.16 0.11 -0.20 -0.16 0.04 0.31 0.41 0.27 -0.55 -0.03 -0.01 1933 -0.89 -1.42 -1.12 -0.54 -0.40 -0.23 0.33 0.22 0.19 0.02 -0.26 -1.46 -0.46 1934 0.18 0.89 -0.49 -0.29 0.54 0.02 0.15 0.04 -0.22 0.45 0.73 0.48 0.21 1935 -0.80 1.76 -0.23 -0.61 -0.85 -0.18 0.18 0.26 0.20 0.49 -1.03 -0.53 -0.11 1936 -0.34 -1.80 -0.51 -0.52 -0.01 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.24 0.10 0.18 0.53 -0.07 1937 -0.42 0.23 -1.14 -0.30 0.14 0.22 0.38 0.57 0.66 0.71 0.03 -0.63 0.04 1938 0.32 0.50 0.75 0.65 -0.05 0.02 0.33 0.67 0.66 0.84 0.78 -0.88 0.38 1939 0.27 0.29 -0.58 0.17 0.04 0.20 0.34 0.44 0.17 -0.46 0.32 1.73 0.24 1940 -1.55 -0.09 -0.07 0.29 -0.19 -0.03 0.15 0.02 0.30 -0.04 0.02 0.41 -0.07 1941 -0.37 0.25 -0.61 -0.28 -0.22 0.13 0.15 -0.08 -0.24 0.07 -0.59 -0.60 -0.20 1942 -0.27 -1.25 -0.55 -0.24 -0.30 0.04 0.06 -0.01 0.18 0.46 -0.07 -0.04 -0.17 1943 -0.85 0.78 -0.50 0.59 0.33 -0.12 0.22 0.33 0.29 0.76 0.10 0.66 0.22 1944 1.47 0.75 0.20 -0.08 0.27 -0.05 0.07 0.20 0.59 0.54 -0.35 -0.92 0.22 1945 -0.65 -0.76 -0.19 0.18 -0.33 -0.34 -0.18 0.49 0.25 0.40 -0.26 -1.20 -0.22 1946 0.42 0.43 -0.18 0.58 -0.31 -0.14 0.10 0.20 0.19 -0.10 -0.06 -1.19 0.00 1947 -0.87 -0.85 0.13 0.31 -0.18 -0.25 0.02 0.20 0.36 0.96 0.10 -0.33 -0.03 1948 1.18 -0.21 -0.54 0.17 0.32 0.22 -0.04 0.15 0.20 0.37 0.33 -0.42 0.14 1949 0.91 -0.33 -0.65 0.11 0.08 -0.21 -0.17 0.11 0.07 0.32 0.39 -0.56 0.00 1950 -1.45 -0.40 -0.15 -0.23 -0.04 -0.07 -0.21 -0.15 0.07 0.10 -1.02 -0.21 -0.31 1951 -0.73 -1.24 -0.84 0.32 0.10 -0.24 -0.04 0.33 0.33 -0.05 -0.14 0.94 -0.11 1952 0.27 -0.05 -1.10 0.10 -0.12 0.14 0.32 0.30 0.30 -0.20 -1.07 -0.31 -0.12 1953 0.25 0.42 0.23 0.43 0.11 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.49 -0.49 0.53 0.27 1954 -1.34 -0.58 -0.79 -0.62 -0.52 0.08 0.01 0.19 0.39 0.48 0.69 -0.26 -0.19 1955 0.96 -0.17 -1.50 -0.47 -0.03 0.08 0.18 0.44 0.15 0.42 -0.52 -0.52 -0.08 1956 -0.13 -1.71 -1.19 -0.71 -0.45 -0.19 -0.27 -0.32 -0.43 -0.19 -0.82 -0.67 -0.59 1957 -0.55 -0.01 -0.54 -0.23 -0.32 -0.01 -0.16 0.01 0.19 -0.07 0.08 0.65 -0.08 1958 0.96 0.67 -0.48 -0.50 -0.07 -0.31 -0.17 0.10 -0.17 0.07 0.17 0.08 0.03 1959 0.27 0.19 0.41 0.13 -0.20 0.05 0.05 0.23 0.18 -0.38 -0.79 -0.03 0.01 1960 -0.01 1.03 -1.46 -0.38 -0.27 0.24 -0.02 0.04 0.13 -0.06 -0.36 0.52 -0.05 1961 0.26 1.05 0.48 0.15 0.03 0.34 0.10 0.15 0.09 -0.21 0.21 -0.27 0.20 1962 0.79 0.75 0.03 0.26 0.15 -0.33 -0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.40 -0.12 0.26 0.18 1963 -0.14 0.91 -0.38 -0.26 -0.08 -0.24 0.10 0.06 0.15 0.94 0.72 -0.21 0.13 1964 0.08 -0.75 -1.35 -0.79 -0.08 -0.12 -0.08 -0.35 -0.32 -0.33 0.04 -0.50 -0.38 1965 0.12 -1.05 -0.25 -0.50 -0.17 -0.24 -0.39 -0.47 -0.45 -0.01 -0.53 -0.05 -0.33 1966 -0.65 0.03 -0.09 -0.67 -0.31 0.07 -0.02 0.14 0.19 -0.11 -0.49 -0.98 -0.24 1967 -0.26 -0.73 0.21 -0.08 0.07 -0.32 -0.01 0.15 -0.08 0.78 0.11 -0.05 -0.02 1968 -0.62 -0.17 1.35 0.20 -0.05 -0.20 -0.35 -0.46 -0.27 -0.18 -0.46 -1.04 -0.19 1969 -2.13 -2.11 -1.26 -0.26 -0.38 -0.48 -0.20 -0.13 -0.23 -0.26 0.18 0.29 -0.58 1970 -0.47 0.47 -0.70 -0.16 -0.19 -0.02 0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.42 0.05 -0.73 -0.18 1971 0.19 -0.59 -0.99 -0.30 -0.16 -0.11 -0.17 -0.01 0.11 0.27 0.58 0.22 -0.08 1972 -1.66 -1.22 -0.34 -0.10 -0.38 -0.23 -0.34 -0.16 -0.82 -0.49 -0.62 -0.38 -0.56 1973 0.03 0.62 0.40 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.05 0.16 -0.06 0.01 -0.07 0.53 0.16 1974 -0.61 -0.74 -0.08 -0.04 -0.21 -0.13 0.01 -0.13 -0.16 -0.51 -0.22 -0.28 -0.26 1975 0.86 0.10 0.35 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.39 0.05 -0.19 -0.19 0.18 1976 0.67 -0.15 -1.20 0.17 -0.18 -0.19 -0.36 -0.28 -0.18 -1.40 -0.91 -0.88 -0.41 1977 -1.29 0.46 0.87 0.68 0.45 0.40 -0.02 -0.20 0.10 -0.14 0.81 -0.17 0.16 1978 0.14 -0.18 0.24 0.08 -0.31 -0.24 -0.21 -0.38 0.06 -0.06 0.33 -0.36 -0.07 1979 -0.70 -0.79 0.16 -0.81 0.01 0.10 -0.14 -0.13 0.21 0.34 0.11 1.42 -0.02 1980 -0.37 0.17 -0.87 -0.07 0.03 0.16 0.04 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 0.67 0.18 -0.02 1981 1.76 1.37 1.29 0.58 0.15 0.35 0.26 0.29 0.16 0.03 0.28 0.93 0.62 1982 -0.76 0.16 -0.45 0.13 0.12 -0.27 0.00 -0.18 0.14 -0.11 -0.24 0.99 -0.04 1983 1.62 0.72 0.59 0.12 -0.36 -0.23 0.27 0.49 0.37 0.25 1.18 0.13 0.43 1984 0.59 -0.15 -0.10 -0.30 0.28 0.17 0.09 0.16 -0.24 -0.02 -0.45 -1.35 -0.11 1985 -0.34 -1.03 -0.60 0.20 0.10 -0.15 -0.15 0.05 -0.14 -0.02 -0.62 -0.05 -0.23 1986 1.18 0.15 0.45 0.20 0.20 0.18 -0.13 -0.08 -0.17 -0.02 -0.34 0.26 0.16 1987 0.11 1.29 -0.65 -0.03 0.09 -0.02 0.03 -0.06 0.32 -0.13 -0.51 0.90 0.11 1988 0.84 -0.01 0.22 0.42 0.29 0.65 0.61 0.48 0.41 0.39 0.13 1.07 0.46 1989 0.78 1.17 1.07 0.55 0.34 0.29 0.49 0.37 0.24 0.52 -0.14 0.65 0.53 1990 0.67 1.12 2.38 0.82 0.49 0.63 0.38 0.47 0.41 0.58 0.66 0.26 0.74 1991 0.62 0.93 0.24 0.75 0.25 0.48 0.53 0.57 0.48 0.51 0.31 0.20 0.49 1992 1.70 1.29 0.65 -0.07 0.15 -0.34 -0.49 -0.15 -0.46 -0.36 -0.11 0.29 0.17 1993 0.98 0.86 0.73 0.19 0.34 0.00 -0.16 -0.06 -0.43 -0.04 -1.21 0.59 0.15 1994 0.44 -0.81 0.72 0.78 0.45 0.66 0.72 0.69 0.62 0.73 0.82 0.66 0.54 1995 1.70 2.30 0.83 0.64 0.38 0.59 0.45 0.79 0.37 0.97 0.60 0.27 0.82 1996 -0.18 0.46 -0.41 -0.15 0.24 0.38 0.33 0.19 -0.27 -0.15 -0.03 0.59 0.08 1997 0.60 1.43 0.89 0.59 0.43 0.61 0.37 0.58 0.50 0.51 0.29 0.91 0.64 1998 0.70 2.25 0.80 1.09 0.83 0.79 0.98 1.02 0.98 0.70 0.15 1.21 0.96 1999 1.24 2.04 0.07 0.92 0.62 0.61 0.79 0.76 0.83 0.77 0.80 1.73 0.93 2000 0.43 2.06 1.64 1.50 0.88 0.62 0.61 0.80 0.46 0.16 -0.17 0.20 0.77 2001 1.07 0.46 1.33 0.83 1.20 0.82 0.87 1.12 0.58 0.92 1.59 0.27 0.92 2002 2.33 2.72 1.62 0.52 0.40 0.96 0.98 0.65 0.87 0.01 0.74 -0.16 0.97 2003 1.37 0.36 0.50 0.48 0.87 0.74 0.74 1.23 0.85 1.10 0.57 1.69 0.87 2004 1.01 1.79 1.39 0.94 0.56 0.70 0.57 0.56 0.78 0.96 1.47 0.53 0.94 2005 1.27 -0.04 0.93 1.24 0.84 1.05 1.12 0.74 1.28 1.41 1.46 0.69 1.00 2006 0.27 0.88 0.90 0.79 0.94 1.28 0.99 0.90 0.93 1.14 0.99 1.99 1.00 2007 2.75 1.42 1.32 1.38 1.12 1.01 0.87 1.26 0.97 1.21 0.91 0.97 1.27 2109. 2008-11-24 15:58:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Nov 24 15:58:29 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: URGENT -slight revision of letter to: Håkan Grudd Hakan great - my only suggestions - remove second word "to" in penultimate paragraph. Add a last paragraph stating I do not intend to make any charge for my involvement in this project. However, I would estimate my time in retrieving , reformatting and transferring recent tree-ring data to the UK and the time I expect to spend on collaboration and manuscript production to amount to a theoretical contribution of approximately (some local currency equivalent of several thousand dollars ). If you could put this on official looking paper and send a PDF version that would be brilliant. Thanks again I can only have small hopes of getting this, as squeezing money from NERC is like getting blood from a stone - but I really want to work with you come whatever . Keith At 14:07 24/11/2008, you wrote: Keith, have a look at attached draft. Feel free to comment and suggest changes. /Håkan Keith Briffa skrev: thanks - as for head of department - not as I see it - but if they are happy you could say so Keith At 12:34 21/11/2008, you wrote: Ok, I'll make a first draft for you to comment. "The letter of support should confirm the organisations commitment ..." Does this mean that the head of the department also must sign? /Håkan Keith Briffa skrev: The Dendroclimatic Divergence Phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction. Dear Hakan, I have just discovered that the rules of UK NERC dictate that the only way I can include your support in the application we are making is to name you as a formal project partner. Of course we are delighted to do this but I need to know that you are happy for me to do so. As I said before you would not be eligible for any funds. (I do intend, if we are successful to seek alternative funds to support a small international workshop at which we could review theories and results). Unfortunately NERC has strict requirements regarding the content of support letters from project partners. I quote: Each Project Partner must provide a detailed letter of support of up to 2 sides of A4. The letter of support should confirm the organisations commitment to the proposed project, identify the value, relevance and possible benefits of the proposed work to the partner, the period of support, the full nature of the collaboration and how the partner will be involved in the project and provide added value. They also state that: Partner contributions, whether in cash or in kind, should be explained in detail in the case for support, including the equivalent value of any in-kind contributions. The letter should be written when the proposal is being prepared and targeted specifically to the project. NERC reserves the right to remove all other letters from applications. The NERC Research Grants Handbook can be found at [1]< [2]http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/researchgrants/grantshandbook.pdf%20where%2 064-66>http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/application/researchgrants/grantshandbook.pdf where 64-66 (page 8) describes project partners and the terms and conditions are on pages 10-21, though I honestly do not think you need to bother with this. In my description of the value of your collaboration I would need also to estimate (in monetary terms) the value of your collaboration. Could you suggest a nominal figure? I know I should have looked much more carefully into this earlier but I wonder whether you could write your letter to comply with the specifications above. Make sure to state explicitly that you are happy to be named and act as project partner in this application. The proposed title should be mentioned explicitly. Please also include some details of how this work will be of (scientific) value to yourself (Institution). I would ask that you state that you will collaborate over the full-30-month period of the research, perhaps saying especially in the late stages of analysis: to provide data early on, but to review results, and collaborate with us in guiding the work and of course in writing up results. Stress the value of your data and (if applicable) ongoing research in the area of divergence. Much of your letter can be left as is but with these specific additions. The letter must be no more than two sides and an electronic version alone is fine. Please believe I know how inconvenient this is and I apologise again never do things in haste (but I always seem to have to). We need this letter as soon as possible but by Thursday at the latest. Best wishes Keith -- 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/ -- ________________________ Håkan Grudd Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm URLs: [4]<[5]http://www.bbcc.su.se>www.bbcc.su.se [6]www.ink.su.se Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 E-mail: [7]<[8]mailto:hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se>hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se Personal webpage: [9]<[10]http://people.su.se/~hgrud>http://people.su.se/~hgrud -- 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/ -- ________________________ Håkan Grudd Bert Bolin Centre for Climate Research Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University SE-106 91 Stockholm URLs: [12]www.bbcc.su.se [13]www.ink.su.se Phone: +46 (0)8 674 7591 Fax: +46 (0)8 16 4818 E-mail: [14]hakan.grudd@natgeo.su.se Personal webpage: [15]http://people.su.se/~hgrud -- Professor Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593909 Fax: +44-1603-507784 [16]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/ 4331. 2008-11-27 15:21:25 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Briffa Keith Prof \(ENV\)" , "Jones Philip Prof \(ENV\)" date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:21:25 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" , "Mcgarvie Michael Mr \(ACAD\)" Dave -- are you saying you want us to review and/or send you every email or document containing McIntyre's name... is that right? And what about paper records with his name on (e.g. print-outs of now-deleted emails)? Tim At 09:51 25/11/2008, Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\) wrote: >Gents, >Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the >substance of Mr. McIntyre's comments but now have to handle his >request under DPA (which means a troll through your files for >material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under the >DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that >individual and subject to access under a DPA subject access >request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all to be careful in what >you put in your correspondence. >As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, >£10, and a form before we proceed but I do assume that all will be >forthcoming upon request. We then have 40 calendar days to respond. > >Cheers, Dave > > >---------- >From: Steve McIntyre [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:28 PM >To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) >Subject: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 > >Dear Mr Palmer, > >Dr Philip Jones of your university recently sent the following email >to 17 climate scientists, commenting unfavorably on my FOI inquiry >FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01. Please note that I had not made any public >disclosure of this follow-up inquiry. Under the Data Protection >Act, I request that you provide me with any other "personal records" >pertaining to me, including any correspondence received by or sent >by UEA and/or CRU. > >In addition, in the email, Jones made false and misleading >statements regarding my inquiry to you and I request that you deal >with these statements according to your responsibilities. > >Jones said that "we put up all the individual tree-ring series >(widths, densities)". This statement was untrue. Some ring width >and density series were not available - they are the ones that I >requested in Item 5. Had Jones put up "all" the series, then this >request would have been unnecessary. Because CRU did not put up >"all" the data, it was entirely reasonable for me to request the >missing data. Jones' misrepresentation of the inquiry creates a bad >impression of me, in a situation where the fault lay with CRU. > >Jones also complained that I want to "know why some individual >series were excluded from the chronologies" and complained that "if >they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment >cores they might understand why some samples are excluded." My >inquiry pertained to inconsistencies between the list of sites >provided in reponse to my FOI request and the procedures reported in >the original articles and/or the website and was entirely >reasonable. I have considerable personal experience with reporting >requirements for mineral exploration fieldwork, which is strictly >regulated by securities commissions, and am quite confident that, >contrary to Jones' allegations, the above inconsistencies do not >arise out of the exigencies of fieldwork, but out of avoidable >inaccuracy on the part of CRU in describing the procedures actually >used. Again, Jones' misrepresentation of the situation creates a >bad impression of me, when the fault lay with CRU. > >Regards, Steve McIntyre > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM >To: santer1@llnl.gov; Steve McIntyre >Cc: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John >Lanzante; Susan Solomon; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; Thomas R >Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin Schmidt; Steven >Sherwood; Frank Wentz; Professor Glenn McGregor >Subject: Re: FW: Santer et al 2008 > > > > Ben, > Your response is already up on the Climate Audit site, and when >I looked there > were over 50 comments. Don't feel picked on - we in CRU had another >FOI request > related to tree-ring data yesterday as well. It is in a similar >vein. We put up all > the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities) - i.e. what we >consider the raw > data. He already had the chronologies. He now wants to know why >some individual > series were excluded from the chronologies and why some chronologies were > excluded in subsequent analyses. This time they have asked for manuals, > computer code and correspondence explaining the exclusions! It >seems neverending. > If they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, > sediment cores they > might understand why some samples are excluded. > > I would urge the 4 NOAA people on the paper to make a joint response to the > FOI request when it filters through that the raw data for our paper are all > publically available. I know it's not in their (skeptic) make up, >but the sooner they > get their hands dirty with the sorts of analyses we/you've done for >this and many > other papers the better. They seem only to want to come in at the >interpretational > end, particularly on the statistical side. > > Cheers > Phil > >At 20:10 10/11/2008, Ben Santer wrote: > >Dear Mr. McIntyre, > > > >I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our > >recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology > >(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the > >gridded model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are > >freely available to researchers. You should have no problem in > >accessing exactly the same model and observational datasets that we > >employed. You will need to do a little work in order to calculate > >synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate > >model atmospheric temperature information. This should not pose any > >difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU > >temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the > >peer-reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate > >spatially-averaged temperature changes from the gridded model and > >observational data. Again, that should not be too taxing. > > > >In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you > >require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our > >IJoC paper are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do > >your work for you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal > >means, synthetic MSU temperatures, etc.) which you can easily > compute yourself. > > > >I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. > >IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. > > > >I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter > >of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. > >Rather that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your > >attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., > >which contains an egregious statistical error. > > > >Please do not communicate with me in the future. > > > >Ben Santer > >Steve McIntyre wrote: > >>Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>*From:* Steve McIntyre > [mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] > >>*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM > >>*To:* ' (santer1@llnl.gov)' > >>*Subject:* Santer et al 2008 > >>Dear Dr Santer, > >> > >>Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 > >>series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a > >>link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated > >>from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I > >>presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) . > >> > >>Thank you for your attention, > >> > >>Steve McIntyre > > > > > >-- > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >----- > >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) 422-3840 > >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 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 1466. 2008-11-30 23:02:17 ______________________________________________________ cc: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:02:17 -0600 from: Michael Schlesinger subject: Re: Fingerprint to: "Johnson, Larry R." Larry: Please find attached in a Word document my rebuttal to Fred Singer's "Fingerprint" argument. Regards, Michael >Michael > >After the debate, several people told me they didn't think you had a >convincing rebuttal to Fred's "fingerprint" argument which he gave >as an example of flawed work by the IPCC. > >Would you provide a cogent response here that I could pass along? >Assume that some in the audience do not have a technical background. > >Thanks, > >Larry > >-------------------------- >Larry R. Johnson, Director >Transportation R&D Center >Argonne National Laboratory >630-252-5631 phone >630-400-8276 mobile > >Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless > Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Schlesinger Rebuttal.doc" 2951. 2008-12-01 12:17:16 ______________________________________________________ date: 1 Dec 2008 12:17:16 +0000 from: JeSHelp@rcuk.ac.uk subject: Confirmation of document submission to: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, t.m.melvin@uea.ac.uk This confirms that the FEC Grant Proposal document submitted by Professor Keith Briffa has been routed to the submitter pool. You will receive a further email communication confirming when the FEC Grant Proposal has been submitted by the organisation to NERC. Principal Investigator: Professor Keith Briffa Submitting RO: University of East Anglia Department: Environmental Sciences Title: The dendroclimatic divergence phenomenon: reassessment of causes and implications for climate reconstruction Date and time of action: 01/12/2008 12:17:16 Number of Document Attachments: 12 Details of Document Attachment 1: Filename=Collab_Smith.pdf Size=64551 Details of Document Attachment 2: Filename=Collab_Esper2.pdf Size=548117 Details of Document Attachment 3: Filename=Collab_Wilmking.pdf Size=74528 Details of Document Attachment 4: Filename=Collab_Pisaric.pdf Size=47087 Details of Document Attachment 5: Filename=Collab_Grudd.pdf Size=2847623 Details of Document Attachment 6: Filename=Collab_Helema.pdf Size=23126 Details of Document Attachment 7: Filename=Collab_Nicolussi.pdf Size=229815 Details of Document Attachment 8: Filename=Collab_Vaganov.pdf Size=57010 Details of Document Attachment 9: Filename=Justification_of_Resources.doc Size=28672 Details of Document Attachment 10: Filename=Melvin_CV.doc Size=41472 Details of Document Attachment 11: Filename=KE_plan.doc Size=38400 Details of Document Attachment 12: Filename=Case_for_Support_final.doc Size=160768 You may review the form by visiting this site: https://je-s.rcuk.ac.uk/eforms/secure/Login.asp Regards Je-S Helpdesk ********************************************************************** Internet communications are not secure and therefore RCUK does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the RCUK unless specifically stated. All RCUK staff can be contacted using Email addresses with the following format: firstname.lastname@rcuk.ac.uk ********************************************************************** 1621. 2008-12-01 15:13:50 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Dec 1 15:13:50 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: Fall of temperatures around 1945 to: "Ian Strangeways" Ian, The Earth's atmosphere system is chaotic. Volcanoes alter circulation oscillations by cooling the surface and warming the stratosphere. The Sun does similar things through variations in cloud around the world. The Sun's output needn't change hardly at all. The various oscillations are know to change and have done since they were discovered. This could be internal dynamics of the climate system, but it is also likely that the major forcing factors are involved as well. If the Sun suddenly increased its output - say by 5%, we all wouldn't get warmer. The atmospheric circulation patterns would change to attempt to still move the heat from the equator to the poles. Most regions would get warmer but some cooler. Cheers Phil At 14:43 01/12/2008, you wrote: Phil Thanks, that all looks fine. But just one surprising thing:- You say the sun (and volcanoes) cause the changes (of the temperature anomalies), possibly by affecting the oscillations. But I was under the impression that the sun was supposed to have no influence whatsoever (in the short term anyway). Now you are saying it is a major factor. In what way does the sun act to cause the changes. It's not through its variations in the solar constant because that is very stable. So how? Hopefully this really is the last question Ian -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 01 December 2008 13:01 To: Ian Strangeways Subject: RE: Fall of temperatures around 1945 Ian, Answers interspersed Cheers Phil At 12:00 01/12/2008, you wrote: >Phil > >Thanks. I will include a note that SSTs for this period are being reviewed >and describe the expected changes. > >I hope you don't mind one more set of questions (that will help to explain >the temperature anomaly charts). I don't expect to have to bother you again >after this. > > >1. Were the changes of temperature before about 1940 due mostly to natural >causes? You say in one of your notes on my chapter 9 that they might in part >be anthropogenic, and that I should not be categorical. I assume that the >answer is 'we don't know for sure' Yes, if anthropogenic explains much of the trend since the 1970s, then it should also explain a small part of the changes before 1940. >2. Were these natural causes mostly or entirely changes in the SOI, the PDO >and the other oscillations? No the natural factors are the Sun and volcanoes. How these factors influence the SOI, PDO and other oscillations is a factor also. The SOI, PDO and others are natural modes of variability - that the atmosphere likes. Solar changes and volcanoes may push the atmosphere towards one of these modes. Anthropogenic forcing is likely to manifest itself as changes in atmospheric modes. >3 I assume that volcanoes affect just individual years (e.g. 1991). Volcanoes probably affect the year after and the year after that. So for Pinatubo, you'd expect to see the effects in 1992 and 1993 (for a 1991 eruption). >4. I assume that post 1975 some of the changes are still due to the SOI and >PDO (especially in view of the big jumps in their indexes at that time). Possibly, but blaming the changes on an Oscillation doesn't help that much as we've no idea why the oscillation change. See the earlier argument in Q2. >4. Is proof of CO2 involvement post 1975 derived entirely from models or is >there evidence in the actual instrumental data? Mostly from models - a la Ch 9 of the IPCC Report. >Ian > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 01 December 2008 09:49 >To: Ian Strangeways >Subject: RE: Fall of temperatures around 1945 > > > Ian, > I am only going on the ppt figure I sent you a week or more ago. > I am awaiting the first draft of the SST adjustment paper (for the >1940s/50s) > but am not expecting this until the spring. > > Cheers > Phil > >At 15:15 27/11/2008, you wrote: > >Phil > > > >I hope you do not think I am trying to argue for cooling in the SH SST to >be > >difficult or confrontational. (See my last email). > > > >I am genuinely puzzled why the SH land air temperature fell after 1945 if > >the SST did not also fall (after correction). If my logic is wrong please > >say so. I am more than ready to be corrected. > > > >I am also aware that I am pestering you rather frequently at the moment. > > > >Ian > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Jones [[3]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: 24 November 2008 16:51 > >To: Ian Strangeways > >Subject: Re: Fall of temperatures around 1945 > > > > > > Ian, > > The issue here is that in the SH, the SST dominates, so correcting >this > > will make the SH cooling less. I don't think the fall in SH SST is real. > > If the SH land shows a fall, you'd need to ensure this wasn't just a > > response to La Nina events. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > > > > >At 12:04 24/11/2008, you wrote: > > >Phil > > > > > >I am ploughing through chapter 9 trying to get it right, accurate > > >and fair. In rewriting the section about the land air temperature of > > >the SH, I see that the temperature there fell quite quickly in the > > >mid 1940s (and suddenly warmed in the late 1950s). We discussed this > > >earlier and so I am reluctant to raise the matter again, but in an > > >earlier email you said that the fall in SH SST in the mid 1940s was > > >not real but due to the change from ERI to buckets after the war. > > >Since the SH land air temperature fell in a similar way, might it > > >not be that the fall in SST was also (at least in part) real? > > > > > >In the NH, the land air temperature did not fall at all around 1945 > > >and neither did the SST (much) > > > > > >Ian > > > > > > >Prof. Phil Jones > >Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3390. 2008-12-01 17:50:55 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 17:50:55 UT from: jgr-atmospheres@agu.org subject: 2008JD011429 (Editor - Yinon Rudich): Request to Review from to: p.jones@uea.ac.uk Content-Disposition: inline Content-Length: 2451 Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary Content-Type: text/plain Dear Dr. Jones: Would you be willing and available to review "Does a weekend effect in diurnal temperature range exist in the eastern and central Tibetan Plateau?" by Qinglong You and Shichang Kang, submitted for possible publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres? The abstract is: The "weekend effect" method (defined here as the average for Saturday through Monday minus the average for Wednesday through Friday) has been used to identify fingerprints of anthropogenic emissions. Based on the daily maximum and minimum temperature series from the China Meteorological Administration homogenized datasets, the weekend effect in diurnal temperature range (DTR) at 71 stations with elevations above 2000 m a.s.l. in the eastern and central Tibetan Plateau (TP) during 1961-2004 is examined, and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is performed to cluster series into four subregions with similar weekend effect variability. The DTR in autumn and winter demonstrates a much stronger and opposite weekend effect and provides a strong evidence of anthropogenic activity in this region, especially in the central TP. Analysis by topographic type and degree of urbanization shows a clear weekly cycle which can not be explained by any microclimatic effect. We hypothesize that t! he interaction with anthropogenic aerosols from local emissions which are then transported by the atmosphere may account for the weekly cycle in the TP, despite this being one of the most remote and clear regions in the world. Please decline the invitation if you think that you are unable to provide an objective review. If you agree to review this manuscript, I would ask for your comments within 30 days from your acceptance. To ACCEPT, click on the link below: 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: 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 Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres. Sincerely, Tao Wang Associate Editor, JGR-Atmospheres 5191. 2008-12-02 09:26:07 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 2 09:26:07 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Collaboration to: BenSmith Dear Ben, I am half way through my current project and have reached the stage where it would be good to get your help/advice/assistance. I am amazed that time has gone so quickly and I seem to have got somewhat distracted with work on process based standardisation necessary to provide a basis for comparing tree-ring based output with the ecosystem based output from GUESS as well as trying to sort out the "Divergence" problem. One objective in this current project was to arrange for GUESS to grow a "model" forest at the site of my dendroclimatic samples in such a way that the variance in growth of the modelled forest matched the variance in growth of the measured samples from the site i.e. the dendro sample would appear to be a typical sample from the modelled trees. I have adjusted the input/output of GUESS to read specified sequences of climate data and adjusted GUESS to output files (selected by logical on/off) containing values for individaul trees e.g. tree rings or carbon generated per unit foliage (added a new field "indiv.ann_assim" which includes the respiration costs). So far I have used the stable public code (2003) and with default parameters for GUESS and my initial testing was for north Finland (65N 30E) and high altitude in the Alps. I downloaded some recent papers (Smith 2008, Miller 2007, Hickler 2006 & 2008, Wramneby 2008, Muller 2007 and Zaehle 2007). Presumably there are several in the pipeline. I would like to use the new baseline version if is available. I would also like to use the species parameters (Millar 2008) for Scandinavia and similar for the Alps if there are any. My process-based standardisation (PBS) model (an "allocation" routine running in the reverse direction) required many changes to the allocation algorithms generally found in tree-growth models in order for the PBS to follow the growth of trees; represented by series of ring-width measurements and end up with a sapwood area that matches that measured from the tree cores; e.g. the need for variable sapwood senescence rates and a height/diameter relationship that varies with tree size. One problem I found using GUESS was that, because of changes with tree age (or size) the initialisation period (needed to generate a random distribution of tree ages across patches and output that is not age-dependant) needs to be serveral time longer than the oldest trees (e,g, 1500+ years). Another problem is that correlation (north Finland) between output from GUESS and monthly temperature is much earlier in the year, May, as compared to July, than for the dendroclimatic output. I would like to visit you sometime during the next two/three months (if possible and convenient) to discuss these many other points with you and members of your team. Tom 4992. 2008-12-02 11:02:16 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:02:16 -0500 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: ETCCDI Workshop - Mexico 2009. to: Phil Jones Hi, Phil, £5M - that should do quite a bit in Mexico. Glad to hear you're going to be attending the meeting. Bill's emails about the delay in his meeting seem sort of cryptic. It sounds like a financial handshake problem between the World Bank and GCOS. But surely there must be other issues to cause this long of a delay. The last I've heard is that it is still on but Bill doesn't know when. The story I've gotten about the Oct. CLIMAT is that we received two sets of CLIMAT messages from Russia. The first had September's data in the October message. The second had October's data in October's message. When I was in charge of GHCN, we had a policy to always replace with the latest data as that should be the correct value. However, there were some problems with this, for example, when a country would transmit a correction to SLP and only transmit that - letting the rest of the fields just be set to missing. Apparently the system as it was working last month did not replace with more recent data so these September values stayed in the data set. NASA was blameless as they just use GHCN. GHCN has been in serious need of maintenance and improvements (e.g., to incorporate all the CLIMAT messages, to account for changing station numbers, etc.) for quite some time. But instead of spending time and energy improving GHCN version 2, the plan was to create GHCN version 3 instead. Unfortunately, GHCN version 3 has taken longer than anticipated. Regards, Tom Phil Jones said the following on 12/2/2008 10:15 AM: Tom, Thanks for praising Jorge. I'll have to go to the meeting as it's being funded by the British Embassy in Mexico. The total for all the projects funded is £5M. Have you heard anything more about Bill's Kenyan meeting? The last I heard was a tentative date in October which was then delayed as they hadn't got the money from the World Bank. Maybe calling it the Horn of Africa is putting people off! Finally - do you know anything about the cock-up GISS made with the October CLIMAT's? They said it was NOAA's or NCDC's mistake. It seemed to me that it could have been Russia putting out the previous month's values again. Anyway - October 2008 was quite warm. We had it 5th warmest for the land only. With SST it went lower down. The skeptics and the right-wing media made a big thing about it. None of them seem to realize that the CLIMAT data (and the SYNOPs) all come in through the GTS! Cheers Phil At 15:23 01/12/2008, you wrote: This is great news, Jorge. Congratulations to everyone involved for getting support for it. The workshop should be a great step forward. Participation: I would be very interested in participating in this conference, but, alas, I only speak English and Fortran. So, while I am happy to consult with you on agendas, help with post workshop analyses, etc., I do not think my participation would be valuable enough to justify the travel expense. As one benefit of such workshops is establishing professional relationships between individuals at institutions that might value future collaboration, I think it would be helpful to have someone from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center participate. The two best candidates I know are Ahira Sanchez-Lugo and Anthony Arguez. They both speak fluent Spanish. Ahira has an MS from the University of Hawaii and works in NCDC's Climate Monitoring Branch where she is currently processing global data and describing significant events. Anthony has a Ph.D. from Florida State University and is currently developing Normals that would be more appropriate to use in a changing climate than just the average of the last 30 years. Last year he was the regional editor for the State of the Climate 2007 BAMS article. Please let me know if you'd like me to approach either or both of them about possibly participating in your workshop. Workshop focus: Nearly every workshop we've held has ended with a request for follow-on workshops. So while there has already been some analysis of extremes in Mexico by you, Manola and Enric, there are always benefits to holding an additional workshop. However, I thought I might mention a variation on the theme which you might wish to consider. Attached is a short description of a GCOS - World Bank proposed series of workshops that Bill Westermeyer ([1]WWestermeyer@wmo.int) of the GCOS Office is organizing for the Horn of Africa which some of us are involved in. Essentially the first of the series of 3 workshops will attempt to combine the ETCCDI-type workshop with an analysis of how well models replicate the observed climate. This latter part is a building step to a future workshop that focuses on what the models project for the region which then contributes to an adaptation focused workshop. I think Bill's vision is great but challenging. Should it work well, it might lead to a whole new series of ETCCDI workshops with an expanded focus. As Bill's workshops haven't been held yet, I'm not in a position of being able to recommend it or not. But I did want to let you know about this possible variation on the theme in case you thought it might be helpful to add some regional modeling to your workshop. I'm sure Bill can provide you with more details. Good luck and please keep me posted on your progress. Regards, Tom [2]J.Vazquez-Aguirre@uea.ac.uk said the following on 11/26/2008 8:55 PM: Dear ETCCDI Members and colleagues, I hope all of you are doing well. You are receiving this message because either a) you play an important role in ETCCDI and we need to keep you informed of the activities below described, or b) we need your support as a workshop instructor during five full-working days in Mexico next spring. I might have already talked to some of you about this at some recent meetings (EMS, Amsterdam or AEC, Tarragona). Anyway, here is the complete sequence of events: Following the recent work from Peterson et al. (2008) about changes in the climate extremes of North America derived from daily data, we have constantly been looking for support to complement the analysis in Mexico. After some time, a suitable grant has come up with for the purpose. In August 2008, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was invited to advise the National Institute of Ecology of Mexico (INE) in submitting a research proposal on `Climate Change Detection and Mitigation' to the Global Opportunities Fund (GOF) of the British Embassy in Mexico. The proposal was approved and I am pleased to inform you that early this month, the Foreign Commonwealth Office (FCO) of the UK signed a grant for the implementation of the project "Strenghtening Capacities for Climate Change Detection in Mexico". It was agreed between INE and FCO that the project will be co-ordinated by the 'Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla (UIAP)' in Mexico. UIAP holds a good reputation in the area of sustainable development. The project has two main stages: the first one is devoted to the analysis of instrumental detection of climate change, here, a Workshop on Climate Extremes is required; the second stage has to do with the promotion of sustainable development and low carbon policies in Mexico. The Workshop on Climate Extremes will be held in March 2009 in Puebla City. For this activity, CRU has strongly reccomended to follow the basic structure of ETCDDI Workshops (Peterson 2005, WMO; Peterson and Manton, 2008, BAMS). Exploration in deep of ETCCDI's climate change indices for Mexico will also be a core aspect of the research being done. Therefore, on behalf of INE and UIAP, we are looking for ETCCDI experts able to perform as Workshop instructors (about 4 or 5 people). Travel and accommodation expenses will be provided by the host institutions. Considering that not all of the 32 expected attendants will be fully qualified in English as a second language, INE and UIAP have requested, if possible, a workshop instruction provided in Spanish (although this is not a limitation if not enough ETCDDI members who speak Spanish are available). Would those of you interested in spending 5 days as an ETCCDI workshop instructor in Mexico, please indicate your availability in the following link? [3] http://www.doodle.com/ix9sasgdcs96ui83 Once the doodle entries are fairly completed (hopefully by next week), UIAP and INE will decide on the most convenient schedule and the participations will be formalized. Please let us know if: 1) you are not interested in being a workshop instructor but participating in the project in some other way (i.e. providing guidance, materials, evaluating results, etc.); 2) you think your participation would be more suitable in the second stage of the project (climate-related decision-making and applications). Any help you might provide will be highly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any comments, questions, hints or corrections you might have about this. Kindly, Jorge L. Vazquez ---------------- Posgraduate Researcher, PhD. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia. [4] j.vazquez-aguirre@uea.ac.uk ============================================== This message has been sent to the following recipients: ETCCDI (Members, potential workshop instructors and advisers) ---------------------------------------------- Albert Klein Tank, KNMI. The Netherlands. Phil D. Jones, CRU. United Kingdom. Clare Goodess, CRU. United Kingdom. Tom Peterson, NCDC. United States of America. Xuebin Zhang, EC. Canada. Manola Brunet, URV. Spain. Enric Aguilar, URV. Spain. Javier Sigró, URV. Spain. Jorge L. Vazquez-Aguirre, CRU. United Kingdom. Host Institutions in Mexico. -------------------------------------------- Benjamín Ortiz Espejel, UIAP, Mexico. Uriel Bando, INE, Mexico. Julia Martínez, INE, Mexico. Andres Flores, INE, Mexico. Miguel Altamirano, INE, Mexico. =============================== -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 Prof. Phil 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4876 4651. 2008-12-02 16:12:48 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:12:48 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Re: Poland to: Phil Jones Phil, On 2 Dec 2008, at 15:38, Phil Jones wrote: > Harry, > Can you quickly find out how many T stations there are in Poland > in CRU TS 3.0? 26: 121050 542 162 32 KOSZALIN POLAND 1848 1990 101848 -999.00 121450 545 186 5 GDYNIA POLAND 1951 1960 101951 -999.00 121500 544 185 135 GDANSK/REBEICHOWO POLAND 1807 1987 101807 -999.00 121600 542 194 -999 ELBING POLAND 1829 2006 101829 -999.00 121907 538 221 450 ARYS POLAND 1830 1865 101830 -999.00 121950 541 230 184 SUWALKI POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 122050 534 146 1 SZCZECIN/DABIE POLAND 1836 2006 101836 -999.00 122500 531 186 69 TORUN POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 122950 531 232 148 BIALYSTOK POLAND 1951 2006 101951 -999.00 123300 524 169 83 POZNAN/LAWICA POLAND 1951 2006 101951 -999.00 123740 524 210 104 LEGIONOWO POLAND 1951 1964 101951 -999.00 123750 522 210 107 WARSAW-OKECIE POLAND 1779 2006 101779 -999.00 123950 520 231 -999 BIALA POLAND 1951 1960 101951 -999.00 123990 521 236 144 TERESPOL POLAND 1955 1967 101955 -999.00 124000 519 155 192 ZIELONA GORA POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 124050 512 150 218 ZGORZELEC POLAND 1951 1967 101951 -999.00 124240 511 169 120 WROCLAW-STRACHOWICE POLAND 1831 2006 101831 -999.00 125200 504 166 356 KLODZKO POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 125300 506 180 165 OPOLE POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 125307 503 173 581 NYSA POLAND 1823 1851 101823 -999.00 125500 508 191 293 CZESTOCHOWA POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 125660 500 200 216 KRAKOW POLAND 1825 2006 101825 -999.00 125850 507 217 217 SANDOMIERZ POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 125950 507 233 212 ZAMOSC POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 126250 493 200 857 ZAKOPANE POLAND 1951 1990 101951 -999.00 126950 498 228 279 PRZEMYSL POLAND 1951 2006 101951 -999.00 Harry > > 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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 3453. 2008-12-03 10:36:08 ______________________________________________________ cc: "'Jenkins, Geoff'" , "'David Sexton'" , "Murphy, James" date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:36:08 +0000 from: C G Kilsby subject: RE: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - to: "'Phil Jones'" , Colin Harpham , "'vassilis glenis'" Phil (et al by cc) yes, I knew the number were non-final, thought you did too. However, I have concerns that though the final ones will change, they won't eliminate these nonsense values. Presumably the wacky numbers are the result of fitting pdfs to (small) samples of changes: there is a finite prob of v large or small changes. This is a long standing problem with using estimates of uncertainty, especially with a fixed interval variable (such as sun hours, pdry etc.) Its OK to put 95% or 67% intervals on the mean, but altogether different when you actually generate and see the real numbers associated with (say) the 1 and 99 percentiles! What to do? 1. Arbitrarily capping the changes is, as we discussed previously, not desirable, for several reasons, including introducitn of bias if you simply truncate. But, we have to do this in some form in order to stop the WG falling over! There is every justificaiton to do something like this if you get negative sunshine hours or DTR reducing more than DTR itself etc. This could be done by MOHC (preferably), Ag, or least favourite, us by fixing at the WG end. The most elegant alternative is (for David) to use a logit, as we do for pdry to avoid going below zero. This would presumbaly mean re-running though.... 2. I'm also worried about the big variations month to month, but can see how this comes out of the emulator etc. I don't think any smoothing (a la UKCIP02) is respectable either, so I guess we are stuck with this. It does mean though that the "wackiness" of any generated series will be limited, becasue consecutive months will cancel their effects. 3. A little galling to spend time fixing the WG up to reproduce control to good level, and then perturb to the climate of Venus, and as various people having criticised CP.net for retaining wacky numbers (me included), difficult to see how we can justify this sort of thing now! If we are only generating one or so weird time series per thousand , we can justify them as real outliers: the first thing is to make the changes physically (if not climatologically) feasible. I therefore seek advice from David and James on how to limit these values? ! Chris ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 03 December 2008 09:43 To: C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham Subject: RE: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - PLEASE LOOK! Chris, So we're working with not-the-final numbers ! Cheers Phil At 00:33 03/12/2008, Stephens, A (Ag) wrote: Hi Phil, I thought everyone was aware that this data was not the final data. Before I doing anything we should see what David says regarding how many of these problems should magically go away with the next dataset. It should be due for delivery late next week. However, nice analysis, very useful. Cheers, Ag ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1] mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 02 December 2008 17:10 To: C G Kilsby; 'Colin Harpham'; 'vassilis glenis'; David Sexton; Murphy, James; Jenkins, Geoff; Stephens, A (Ag) Subject: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - PLEASE LOOK! Dear All, READ ALL of THIS! CRU and Newcastle are working on the Change Factors that Ag has sent up. My understanding is that these are the final set! I hope this is not the case, as there are serious problems with them. According to Vaz at Newcastle, Ag sent him 1000 cfs for each of the 25km cells (and there are 439 25km cells). At the moment we are working directly with these 25km cells, before going down to the 5km. What we're taking from for the WG is mean T and DTR directly - we do nothing. Ag then takes two formulae that we gave him to calculate what we want (delta's for sunshine and vapour pressure from cloudiness and RH - needing T as well to get VP). The WG runs for most of these model variants with no problems, but crashes on 47 of them. What Colin here has put together is an excel file of the deltas for these 47 that crash the WG. The plot then shows these deltas by month for the 4 variables, Tmean, DTR, Sunshine, Vapour Pressure. First remember that the WG (the CRU part) is only failing on 47 (out of 439 times 1000 runs). We should probably do a similar plot for a chunk of the ones that work OK. The numbers of the 25 km grid boxes are in the excel file. They relate to Vaz's numbering system from north to south. Almost all of the boxes where failures have occurred have been in central southern England. You can see these in some in Chris' ppt that Kathryn sent around earlier today. They are the gaps on the RH maps. It only takes one very odd number to get the WG to crash. Many of these crashes are caused by what happens for Vapour Pressure in July. Why July is beyond me (?), so Ag - can you check the code that Colin sent to produce Vapour Pressure from RH and T. It might be best of you could send us more of this code as this could be where some of the other problems come from (eg. cloudiness to sunshine). The other values that cause the WG to crash are some of the DTRs and the July Sunshine. It is the reductions that cause the problem. We can put a trap in for these but they make no sense. There are two examples of DTR reducing by >7 deg C in November. The problem here is that this is larger than the actual DTR for November.. The drops in sunshine in July (on two occasions) are larger than the average sunshine, which means the WG ends up with negative sunshine! The increases in DTR in June and August by almost 15 deg C also seem quite out of the ordinary. Also, there appears a tendency for some of these variants for Tmean and DTR to be high one month, then low, then high again - a feature which can be seen in the plots. The oddest model variant is on line 27 in the xls (labelled 373). July T increases by 14.42 deg C, sunshine decreases by 5.06 hours, vapour pressure increases by 26.4mb! The only climate I know like this is Singapore Airport! Hopefully with a bit of work we will be able to solve these issues quite quickly. I hope they are with you Ag (sorry) as it will be easier to correct for. If they are in the original model variants from the HC then we have problems. As I understand it the users will be able to get access to these numbers - which cause us lots of problems. 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Scanned by iCritical. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4173. 2008-12-03 12:59:00 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 3 12:59:00 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - PLEASE to: "vassilis glenis" Vaz, OK. It is crashing though when the numbers are ridiculous! Let Colin know when the supposed final set arrive. We need then to determine how often it is going to crash and then what to do about it - see Chris' email. Cheers Phil At 12:54 03/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I think the WG is going to crach more than 47 times because I only sent you the set of change factors that caused the WG to stop for the first time. e.g. at cell 1352 the WG stopped at run index 82 and I didn't try to run it for the remaining 918 cfs. thanks, vas On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Phil Jones wrote: > > Dear All, > Before you say anything, I know you're not doing sunshine, but you > are doing cloudiness. We are turning cloudiness into sunshine, but it is > still a variable that is bounded by 0 and 1. > The number of times the WG is falling over is very small (47/(439*1000)), > but many that work may be wacky. > One other issue I'm not clear on is - will the users be able to see these cfs? > No for the WG when we go down to 5km, but will people be able to look > at a single set from the 439? > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 10:36 03/12/2008, C G Kilsby wrote: > > Phil (et al by cc) > > yes, I knew the number were non-final, thought you did too. > However, I have concerns that though the final ones will change, they won't eliminate these nonsense values. > > Presumably the wacky numbers are the result of fitting pdfs to (small) samples of changes: there is a finite prob of v large or small changes. > This is a long standing problem with using estimates of uncertainty, especially with a fixed interval variable (such as sun hours, pdry etc.) > Its OK to put 95% or 67% intervals on the mean, but altogether different when you actually generate and see the real numbers associated with (say) the 1 and 99 percentiles! > > What to do? > > 1. Arbitrarily capping the changes is, as we discussed previously, not desirable, for several reasons, including introducitn of bias if you simply truncate. > But, we have to do this in some form in order to stop the WG falling over! > There is every justificaiton to do something like this if you get negative sunshine hours or DTR reducing more than DTR itself etc. > This could be done by MOHC (preferably), Ag, or least favourite, us by fixing at the WG end. > The most elegant alternative is (for David) to use a logit, as we do for pdry to avoid going below zero. This would presumbaly mean re-running though.... > > 2. I'm also worried about the big variations month to month, but can see how this comes out of the emulator etc. I don't think any smoothing (a la UKCIP02) is respectable either, so I guess we are stuck with this. It does mean though that the "wackiness" of any generated series will be limited, becasue consecutive months will cancel their effects. > > 3. A little galling to spend time fixing the WG up to reproduce control to good level, and then perturb to the climate of Venus, and as various people having criticised CP.net for retaining wacky numbers (me included), difficult to see how we can justify this sort of thing now! > > If we are only generating one or so weird time series per thousand , we can justify them as real outliers: the first thing is to make the changes physically (if not climatologically) feasible. > > I therefore seek advice from David and James on how to limit these values? ! > > Chris > > > > ________________________________ > From: Phil Jones [ [1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 03 December 2008 09:43 > To: C G Kilsby; Colin Harpham > Subject: RE: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - PLEASE LOOK! > > > Chris, > So we're working with not-the-final numbers ! > Cheers > Phil > > > At 00:33 03/12/2008, Stephens, A (Ag) wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > I thought everyone was aware that this data was not the final data. > > Before I doing anything we should see what David says regarding how many of these problems should magically go away with the next dataset. It should be due for delivery late next week. > > However, nice analysis, very useful. > > Cheers, > > Ag > > ________________________________ > From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > Sent: 02 December 2008 17:10 > To: C G Kilsby; 'Colin Harpham'; 'vassilis glenis'; David Sexton; Murphy, James; Jenkins, Geoff; Stephens, A (Ag) > Subject: The change factors that Ag sent to Newcastle recently - PLEASE LOOK! > > Dear All, > READ ALL of THIS! > > CRU and Newcastle are working on the Change Factors that Ag has sent up. > My understanding is that these are the final set! I hope this is not the case, as > there are serious problems with them. According to Vaz at Newcastle, Ag sent him > 1000 cfs for each of the 25km cells (and there are 439 25km cells). At the > moment we are working directly with these 25km cells, before going down to the > 5km. > What we're taking from > for the WG is mean T and DTR directly - we do nothing. Ag then takes two > formulae that we gave him to calculate what we want (delta's for sunshine and vapour > pressure from cloudiness and RH - needing T as well to get VP). > The WG runs for most of these model variants with no problems, but crashes > on 47 of them. What Colin here has put together is an excel file of the > deltas for these 47 that crash the WG. The plot then shows these deltas by month for the > 4 variables, Tmean, DTR, Sunshine, Vapour Pressure. > > First remember that the WG (the CRU part) is only failing on 47 (out of 439 times 1000 runs). > We should probably do a similar plot for a chunk of the ones that work OK. > > The numbers of the 25 km grid boxes are in the excel file. They relate to Vaz's > numbering system from north to south. Almost all of the boxes where failures have > occurred have been in central southern England. You can see these in some in > Chris' ppt that Kathryn sent around earlier today. They are the gaps on the RH maps. > > It only takes one very odd number to get the WG to crash. Many of these crashes are > caused by what happens for Vapour Pressure in July. Why July is beyond me (?), so > Ag - can you check the code that Colin sent to produce Vapour Pressure from RH > and T. It might be best of you could send us more of this code as this could be where > some of the other problems come from (eg. cloudiness to sunshine). > > The other values that cause the WG to crash are some of the DTRs and the July > Sunshine. It is the reductions that cause the problem. We can put a trap in for > these but they make no sense. There are two examples of DTR reducing by >7 deg C > in November. The problem here is that this is larger than the actual DTR for November.. > The drops in sunshine in July (on two occasions) are larger than the average sunshine, > which means the WG ends up with negative sunshine! > The increases in DTR in June and August by almost 15 deg C also seem quite out of > the ordinary. Also, there appears a tendency for some of these variants for > Tmean and DTR to be high one month, then low, then high again - a feature > which can be seen in the plots. > > The oddest model variant is on line 27 in the xls (labelled 373). July T increases by > 14.42 deg C, sunshine decreases by 5.06 hours, vapour pressure increases by 26.4mb! > The only climate I know like this is Singapore Airport! > > Hopefully with a bit of work we will be able to solve these issues quite quickly. > I hope they are with you Ag (sorry) as it will be easier to correct for. If they are in > the original model variants from the HC then we have problems. As I understand it > the users will be able to get access to these numbers - which cause us lots of problems. > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > Scanned by iCritical. > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 217. 2008-12-03 13:09:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 3 13:09:24 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: NASA to: Tom Wigley Tom, Here is a paragraph I got from Tom Peterson at NCDC overnight The story I've gotten about the Oct. CLIMAT is that we received two sets of CLIMAT messages from Russia. The first had September's data in the October message. The second had October's data in October's message. When I was in charge of GHCN, we had a policy to always replace with the latest data as that should be the correct value. However, there were some problems with this, for example, when a country would transmit a correction to SLP and only transmit that - letting the rest of the fields just be set to missing. Apparently the system as it was working last month did not replace with more recent data so these September values stayed in the data set. NASA was blameless as they just use GHCN. GHCN has been in serious need of maintenance and improvements (e.g., to incorporate all the CLIMAT messages, to account for changing station numbers, etc.) for quite some time. But instead of spending time and energy improving GHCN version 2, the plan was to create GHCN version 3 instead. Unfortunately, GHCN version 3 has taken longer than anticipated. Cheers Phil PS Russia is the only country to send its CLIMAT data in large groups (as opposed to altogether for the whole country). This is why it was only part of Russia that was affected. This also explains why the skeptics think this is all down to GHCN. NCDC must injest the climate messages into GHCN. It isn't GHCN that is at fault, but there logic. What I do is that if new data come in it replaces old. If it comes in missing then you keep what you might have had! Seems fairly trivial to me! Tom, This is all a storm in a tea cup. GISS shouldn't have got it wrong, but far too much is being made of it by skeptics and their journalist friends in the US. Much of what this report states is garbage. GISS had some of the Russian data in wrong for Oct 2008. This comes about from trying to do things too soon after the month. GISS pick up the data from NOAA/NCDC and it is based on a mixture of CLIMAT (the monthly averages) and SYNOP messages off the GTS. Attached is what MOHC produced from these two sources for October for the CLIMAT and for the SYNOPS. The latter is dodgy as you have to decide how many days are needed to get a complete month. The CLIMAT comes through on the 4/5th of the month and again later between the 16-20th (in this case during November). GISS try to get this out just after the 5th - as the UAH/RSS get theirs out quickly. We wait till the 20th or 21st. People shouldn't be looking at individual months, but the skeptics do to keep saying that there has been no warming since 1998. To counter this you just have to look at the 1991-2000 average versus the 2001 to 2008 average. GISS blamed NCDC for not doing enough QC on what was coming in, but I reckon this isn't right. It is clear that many of the Russian data for October were September's data. When they spotted the mistake they reran the gridding and put the revision up. The skeptics then said some other parts of the world had altered and GISS got worried. What they had forgotten was that CLIMAT data keeps coming in during the first 20 days of the month, so the second time they ran the gridding they had more data in other parts of the world - so that is why other areas appeared to change. What also happens is that the SYNOPS come in first (they do each day during October), GISS must replace these with the better CLIMATs as they come in during November. CRU/MOHC don't use the SYNOPS. MOHC are doing some experiments with these data to update daily series for extreme temperature and precip analyses - and one of checking these is the comparison on a monthly basis with the CLIMATs. The real issue is why did NOAA/NCDC pick up the wrong CLIMAT or SYNOPS for October (September's values for 90+ stations in Russia). According to MOHC, the Russians put the right data out. Countries often put the previous months data out by mistake - mainly in Africa and South America. None of the GISS or NOAA/NCDC software tests for this, but it's easy to see if you look at the precip amounts, which they won't be doing. Gavin says something went wrong at NOAA/NCDC, which is reasonable. It is hard for GISS to pick up September's data just for 90 stations in Russia, when they get the whole month's data from NOAA/NCDC. I've made a note to ask Russ Vose, Dave Easterling or Tom Peterson when I next email one of them. It is probable it was in DC though and not in Asheville. Our numbers are on our web site. CRUTEM3 (land only) for Glob/NH/SH they were 0.78/0.86/0.71 wrt 61-90. So October was quite warm. Globally only 2004-2007 were warmer - since 1900. The blogs had a lot about telling NOAA/NCDC and GISS where they can pick up more data off NMS web sites. These are only for a few countries though. The blogs seem to have no idea of the GTS (never mentioned anywhere). There seems to be a belief that NOAA produces the monthly averages - but the CLIMATs are produced in the countries. NOAA does from the synops, but replaces these as the month progresses. It all stems from trying to do things too quickly after the month. Our (MOHC and mine) are all automated. MOHC do look at the maps - like those attached. Cheers Phil At 03:35 02/12/2008, you wrote: Phil, I presume you have seen the attached. Can you comment? I/we have never been very keen on what GISS does or produces, but their results are still in reasonable accord with CRU and NOAA. Is this just luck? Why, I wonder do they go off half-cocked like this? What do/will CRU/NOAA get for Oct. 2008? 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2368. 2008-12-03 13:31:06 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: "Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)" Dave, Do I understand it correctly - if he doesn't pay the £10 we don't have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I'm not wasting my time going through these. Cheers Phil At 09:51 25/11/2008, you wrote: Gents, Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the substance of Mr. McIntyre's comments but now have to handle his request under DPA (which means a troll through your files for material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under the DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that individual and subject to access under a DPA subject access request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all to be careful in what you put in your correspondence. As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, £10, and a form before we proceed but I do assume that all will be forthcoming upon request. We then have 40 calendar days to respond. Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:28 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 Dear Mr Palmer, Dr Philip Jones of your university recently sent the following email to 17 climate scientists, commenting unfavorably on my FOI inquiry FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01. Please note that I had not made any public disclosure of this follow-up inquiry. Under the Data Protection Act, I request that you provide me with any other "personal records" pertaining to me, including any correspondence received by or sent by UEA and/or CRU. In addition, in the email, Jones made false and misleading statements regarding my inquiry to you and I request that you deal with these statements according to your responsibilities. Jones said that "we put up all the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities)". This statement was untrue. Some ring width and density series were not available - they are the ones that I requested in Item 5. Had Jones put up "all" the series, then this request would have been unnecessary. Because CRU did not put up "all" the data, it was entirely reasonable for me to request the missing data. Jones' misrepresentation of the inquiry creates a bad impression of me, in a situation where the fault lay with CRU. Jones also complained that I want to "know why some individual series were excluded from the chronologies" and complained that "if they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded." My inquiry pertained to inconsistencies between the list of sites provided in reponse to my FOI request and the procedures reported in the original articles and/or the website and was entirely reasonable. I have considerable personal experience with reporting requirements for mineral exploration fieldwork, which is strictly regulated by securities commissions, and am quite confident that, contrary to Jones' allegations, the above inconsistencies do not arise out of the exigencies of fieldwork, but out of avoidable inaccuracy on the part of CRU in describing the procedures actually used. Again, Jones' misrepresentation of the situation creates a bad impression of me, when the fault lay with CRU. Regards, Steve McIntyre -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM To: santer1@llnl.gov; Steve McIntyre Cc: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John Lanzante; Susan Solomon; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz; Professor Glenn McGregor Subject: Re: FW: Santer et al 2008 Ben, Your response is already up on the Climate Audit site, and when I looked there were over 50 comments. Don't feel picked on - we in CRU had another FOI request related to tree-ring data yesterday as well. It is in a similar vein. We put up all the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities) - i.e. what we consider the raw data. He already had the chronologies. He now wants to know why some individual series were excluded from the chronologies and why some chronologies were excluded in subsequent analyses. This time they have asked for manuals, computer code and correspondence explaining the exclusions! It seems neverending. If they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded. I would urge the 4 NOAA people on the paper to make a joint response to the FOI request when it filters through that the raw data for our paper are all publically available. I know it's not in their (skeptic) make up, but the sooner they get their hands dirty with the sorts of analyses we/you've done for this and many other papers the better. They seem only to want to come in at the interpretational end, particularly on the statistical side. Cheers Phil At 20:10 10/11/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Mr. McIntyre, > >I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our >recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology >(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the >gridded model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are >freely available to researchers. You should have no problem in >accessing exactly the same model and observational datasets that we >employed. You will need to do a little work in order to calculate >synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate >model atmospheric temperature information. This should not pose any >difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU >temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the >peer-reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate >spatially-averaged temperature changes from the gridded model and >observational data. Again, that should not be too taxing. > >In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you >require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our >IJoC paper are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do >your work for you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal >means, synthetic MSU temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself. > >I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. >IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. > >I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter >of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. >Rather that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your >attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., >which contains an egregious statistical error. > >Please do not communicate with me in the future. > >Ben Santer >Steve McIntyre wrote: >>Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre >> >>-----Original Message----- >>*From:* Steve McIntyre [[3]mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >>*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM >>*To:* ' (santer1@llnl.gov)' >>*Subject:* Santer et al 2008 >>Dear Dr Santer, >> >>Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 >>series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a >>link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated >>from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I >>presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) . >> >>Thank you for your attention, >> >>Steve McIntyre > > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- >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) 422-3840 >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3341. 2008-12-03 16:01:24 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 3 16:01:24 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Schles suggestion to: Gavin Schmidt Gavin, I'm trying - but we've not got to bother unless he pays his £10! It would probably be counter productive, but it would be good if all that is going on behind the scenes re FOI, research fraud allegations etc were to come out. If I decide to do IPCC again, I'll certainly flag it up with Thomas Stocker. Cheers Phil PS I found out from Tom Peterson what probably happened re October. A part of Russia sent September's data as October. This went in. They quickly sent the correct data, but it didn't get changed. This is because their (GHCN) software was wrong. When 'corrected' data come in many countries just send the 'new' number with the other fields missing. What we do is always replace 'old' with 'new', but if the 'new' is missing in some fields we don't replace 'old'. The if statement should be on each piece of data - not on the whole set of data from an entire country - or in this case a part of Russia. As usual - there is no substitute for experience! At 15:34 03/12/2008, you wrote: Using the DPA is surely an abuse of the process. A comment in an email about someone doesn't count as 'data' - it's just opinion. The only 'data' you have is his email address. I'm sure he'll be pleased to get that. Can't you invoke the vexatious litigant clause? ;) Gavin On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 08:57, Phil Jones wrote: > Ben, > When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide > by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a > screen, to convince them otherwise > showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the > types of people we were > dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the > Environmental Sciences school > - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've > got to know the FOI > person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. > The VC is also > aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but > probably doesn't know > the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures. > > One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within > the School. So > I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up > the ladder of > requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away of > requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and > Imperial College. > > So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be > the first thing > you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. > > The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data > Protection Act request sent by > a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific > credibility with his peers! > If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go > through my emails > and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago > I deleted loads of > emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation > is different from the FOI - > it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor > credit rating ! > > In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - > mainly paleo data. > Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put > up. Every time, so > far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just > statements saying read > what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one such > response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent > programs, any codes > and manuals. > > In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out > in 2 weeks time. > These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next > year we'll > be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and > amounts of grants, > papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of > FOI requests you get > should be another. > > When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of > people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early > next year. Gavin > and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly > what will appear on > CA once they get access to it! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote: > >Dear Tom, > > > >I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good > >one. Steve Sherwood made a similar suggestion. I'd be perfectly > >happy NOT to be involved in such a Commentary. My involvement would > >look too self-serving. > > > >One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation. > >At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to > >provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to > >McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced > >(based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I > >would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands > >for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil > >has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies > >for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for > >further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully > >and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website. > > > >You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the > >MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in > >"reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and > >inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. > >For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my > >own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant > >need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly > >don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of > >Steven McIntyre. > > > >I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If > >they do not, I'm fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere. > > > >With best regards, > > > >Ben > > > >Tom Wigley wrote: > >>Ben, > >>Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.) > >>this is something that Nature or Science might like > >>as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include > >>some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The > >>notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem > >>is that you could not be first author as this would > >>look like garnering publicity for your own work (as > >>the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having > >>me as the first author may not work. An ideal person > >>would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying "nice > >>summary". > >>What do you think? > >>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) 422-3840 > >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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1126. 2008-12-04 12:33:42 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Dec 4 12:33:42 2008 from: Keith Briffa subject: Re: Dissertation thoughts and PhD application to: R.Bellamy@uea.ac.uk fine At 12:10 04/12/2008, you wrote: Hi Keith, I went to see Tim Lenton yesterday and discussed a few ideas with him. An idea we both really liked was identifying potenital social tipping points arising from physical tipping point forcings. A broad topic, I've been thinking about refining it to identifying potential tipping points in politically unstable regimes. I'm also compiling my application to Neil Adger's PhD entitled 'the values of climate change adaptation: a case study of adaptation practices and limits.' Would you mind being one of my referees? The deadline is tomorrow so I will be handing in my application to the admissions office this afternoon. Cheers, Rob -- 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/ 344. 2008-12-04 12:40:29 ______________________________________________________ date: Thu Dec 4 12:40:29 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Schles suggestion to: wigley@ucar.edu Tom, Obviously don't pass on! These proofs have gone back with about 60 changes to be made. Should be out first issue of 2009. The bet is that CA will say they found that the IPCC Figure from 1990 was a Lamb diagram 6 months ago. They did, but they didn't get the right source, and our paper was submitted in early 2008. CA will also comment on the section on pp21-31. The summary of where we are with the individual proxies is useful for most of them - but we didn't get anyone working with speleothems involved. I remain unconvinced they get the resolution claimed. Yet to see a speleothem paper which doesn't compare their (individual site) reconstruction with either the MBH series or a solar proxy. I hope Ben gets the support from PCMDI and LLNL. Cheers Phil Cheers Phil At 22:33 03/12/2008, you wrote: Phil, Thanks for all the information on the GISS etc. data. Re below -- can you send me a preprint of the Holocene paper. Tom. +++++++++++++++ > > Ben, > When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide > by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a > screen, to convince them otherwise > showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the > types of people we were > dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the > Environmental Sciences school > - the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've > got to know the FOI > person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals. > The VC is also > aware of what is going on - at least for one of the requests, but > probably doesn't know > the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures. > > One issue is that these requests aren't that widely known within > the School. So > I don't know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up > the ladder of > requests at UEA though - we're way behind computing though. We're away > of > requests going to others in the UK - MOHC, Reading, DEFRA and > Imperial College. > > So spelling out all the detail to the LLNL management should be > the first thing > you do. I hope that Dave is being supportive at PCMDI. > > The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data > Protection Act request sent by > a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific > credibility with his peers! > If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go > through my emails > and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago > I deleted loads of > emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation > is different from the FOI - > it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor > credit rating ! > > In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - > mainly paleo data. > Each request generally leads to more - to explain what we've put > up. Every time, so > far, that hasn't led to anything being added - instead just > statements saying read > what is in the papers and what is on the web site! Tim Osborn sent one > such > response (via the FOI person) earlier this week. We've never sent > programs, any codes > and manuals. > > In the UK, the Research Assessment Exercise results will be out > in 2 weeks time. > These are expensive to produce and take too much time, so from next > year we'll > be moving onto a metric based system. The metrics will be # and > amounts of grants, > papers and citations etc. I did flippantly suggest that the # of > FOI requests you get > should be another. > > When you look at CA, they only look papers from a handful of > people. They will start on another coming out in The Holocene early > next year. Gavin > and Mike are on this with loads of others. I've told both exactly > what will appear on > CA once they get access to it! > > Cheers > Phil > > > At 01:17 03/12/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >>Dear Tom, >> >>I think that the idea of a Commentary in Science or Nature is a good >>one. Steve Sherwood made a similar suggestion. I'd be perfectly >>happy NOT to be involved in such a Commentary. My involvement would >>look too self-serving. >> >>One of the problems is that I'm caught in a real Catch-22 situation. >>At present, I'm damned and publicly vilified because I refused to >>provide McIntyre with the data he requested. But had I acceded to >>McIntyre's initial request for climate model data, I'm convinced >>(based on the past experiences of Mike Mann, Phil, and Gavin) that I >>would have spent years of my scientific career dealing with demands >>for further explanations, additional data, Fortran code, etc. (Phil >>has been complying with FOIA requests from McIntyre and his cronies >>for over two years). And if I ever denied a single request for >>further information, McIntyre would have rubbed his hands gleefully >>and written: "You see - he's guilty as charged!" on his website. >> >>You and I have spent over a decade of our scientific careers on the >>MSU issue, Tom. During much of that time, we've had to do science in >>"reactive mode", responding to the latest outrageous claims and >>inept science by John Christy, David Douglass, or S. Fred Singer. >>For the remainder of my scientific career, I'd like to dictate my >>own research agenda. I don't want that agenda driven by the constant >>need to respond to Christy, Douglass, and Singer. And I certainly >>don't want to spend years of my life interacting with the likes of >>Steven McIntyre. >> >>I hope LLNL management will provide me with their full support. If >>they do not, I'm fully prepared to seek employment elsewhere. >> >>With best regards, >> >>Ben >> >>Tom Wigley wrote: >>>Ben, >>>Re the idea Michael sent around (to Revkin et al.) >>>this is something that Nature or Science might like >>>as a Commentary. It might even be possible to include >>>some indirect reference to the Mc audit issue. The >>>notes I sent could be a starting point. One problem >>>is that you could not be first author as this would >>>look like garnering publicity for your own work (as >>>the 2 key papers are both Santer et al.) Even having >>>me as the first author may not work. An ideal person >>>would be Tom Karl, who sent me a response saying "nice >>>summary". >>>What do you think? >>>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) 422-3840 >>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 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 701. 2008-12-04 14:29:16 ______________________________________________________ cc: Nathan Gillett , Gabi Hegerl , Peter Stott , Toru Nozawa , Alexey Karpechko , Michael Wehner date: Thu Dec 4 14:29:16 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Fwd: draft “Communication Arising” regarding your recent to: Dáithí Stone Daithi, No myth - it's true and applies to ERA-40 as well. They do have SSTs changing - so they get a bit of the anthro signal that way. There is a Nature comment (Trenberth) on Kalnay and Cai (2003) referred to in Ch 3 of AR4. Calculating the PDO and AMO from SST means you'll get some upward trend as well. The more I think about this comment - the poorer it gets. Cheers Phil At 14:03 04/12/2008, Dáithí Stone wrote: I seem to remember something about the NCEP reanalysis having constant GHG concentrations, but maybe this is just an urban myth? DA On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Phil Jones wrote: Nathan, A few thoughts. First - most odd that they go on about the Arctic. The warming here is much clearer and the sea ice is disappearing in summer! I can't see their comment getting past reviewers. All of the Arctic and Antarctic stations are manned - at least at the moment. Even though they are manned, the equipment might be automatic, in that readings can be made without going out into the cold! You can't use Reanalyses in the Arctic and especially the Antarctic as they are way off from the observations (Simmons et al., 2004), especially before the satellite era in 1979. The reason they are way off from the obs is that before the satellite era there aren't enough data to overcome model biases. In the Antarctic (fig 6 in Simmons et al) most of the obs get rejected as they are so far away from the model's wrong first guess. You could suggest that they work out (from the Reanalysis - it doesn't matter that it's wrong) how representative the limited Antarctic temperature stations are of the continental average - at the 5 year scale. They will be surprised by the result. A limited number of stations works quite well at this timescale. Suggest they read this paper (Jones et al. 1997) on this. They are confused by daily timescales and the 5-year averages we are looking at. The comparison to Italy is ridiculous. At the 5-year timescale, probably just one or two Italian sites would be all that was needed. The issue here is how many spatial degrees of freedom there is - and this depends on timescale. You have pointed out that their regressions with PDO and AMO are not very clever. They are going to be losing temporal degrees of freedom with their lagged regressors. I bet they are not reducing degrees of freedom because of autocorrelation either. It is quite easy to take any temperature series and show that it can be related to circulation indices. Just because the circulation explains more variability than the climate models doesn't mean that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening. What is causing the circulation to change! Maybe you could add a few references where you've shown D&A for the NAM and the SAM. Anyone tried the AMO or the PDO. Cheers Phil PS Your grant has just paid the page charges from Nature Geosciences! Jones, P.D., Osborn, T.J. and Briffa, K.R., 1997: Estimating sampling errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Climate 10, 2548-2568. Simmons, A.J., P.D. Jones, V. da Costa Bechtold, A.C.M. Beljaars, P.W. Kållberg, 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. At 21:42 03/12/2008, Nathan Gillett wrote: Hi all, I was sent the attached draft paper, which the authors say they are planning to submit in response to our Nature Geoscience paper, inviting our comments. I've drafted a response - see attached. At this stage, this probably isn't worth spending a huge amount of time on, but let me know if you have further comments. Phil - am I correct in writing that the station data used in CRUTEM3 comes only from manned stations? Cheers, Nathan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Luigi Mariani Date: 2008/12/1 Subject: draft "Communication Arising" regarding your recent Nature Geoscience paper ? please comment To: n.gillett@uea.ac.uk Cc: Maurizio Morabito , Parisi Simone , Gabriele Cola , Paolo Mezzasalma , Teodoro Georgiadis < t.georgiadis@ibimet.cnr.it> Dear Dr. Gillett, We are a group of climate scientists mostly based in Italy. We have read with interest your recent article in Nature Geoscience "Attribution of polar warming to human influence" but have some doubts regarding your conclusions. We have prepared a draft "Communication Arising" for that same publication (enclosed). Before we submit our contribution to Nature Geoscience, we would very much appreciate your comments about our points, with the aim of resolving disputes whenever possible and remove points where we all agree. We are also sending a spreadsheet with the data and computations needed to replicate our findings. Any question you might have, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance. Please note that as per Nature's guidelines, you have 2 weeks to respond. Best regards. Luigi Mariani Università degli Studi di Milano Dept. of Crop Science Agrometeorology research group ------------------------ Luigi Mariani 329 7027077 (cellulare) 02 50316587 (Unimi-DiProVe) 02 4238410 (studio) -- **************************************************************************** Dr Nathan Gillett, Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, University of Victoria, PO Box 3065, STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3V6, Canada. Tel: (250) 363 8264 Fax: (250) 363 8247 Email: Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca **************************************************************************** Content-Type: application/msword; name=comments_gillet_final.doc X-Attachment-Id: 0.2 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=comments_gillet_final.doc Content-Type: application/msword; name=Mariani_response.doc X-Attachment-Id: f_foahyeac2 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=Mariani_response.doc Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ?? ? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- MAIL: CSAG, Shell Environmental and Geographical Science Building, South Lane, Upper Campus, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch, Western Cape, 7701, South Africa TELEPHONE: +27-21-650-2999 FACSIMILE: +27-21-650-5773 E-MAIL: stoned@csag.uct.ac.za WEBPAGE: [1]http://www.csag.uct.ac.za/~daithi -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2330. 2008-12-04 14:29:20 ______________________________________________________ cc: Tim Osborn date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:29:20 +0000 from: Ian Harris subject: Automatic Updating of TS 3.0 to: Phil Jones Hi I'm coding the update program (which calls modified existing routines to effect tasks). So I do need to firm up the expected process. These are my current 'high level' processes: NEW DATA PROCESS 1. Ops runs 'Update', and chooses 'New Data'. 2. Ops selects MCDW, CLIMAT, and/or BOM data and gives update dates 3. Ops selects 'interactive' or 'automatic' database merging. 4. Update checks source files are present and initiates conversion to CRU format. 5. Update runs the merging program to join the new data to the existing databases, creating new databases. If data for previous periods is included in the update files, it will be included. 5a. If Ops selected 'automatic', merging program asks for decisions on 'difficult' matches. These are all logged of course. 6. Merge program creates log of changes between old databases and new ones, inc. source of the data. UPDATE PROCESS 1. Ops runs 'Update', and chooses 'Update'. Yes, I know. 2. Ops gives parameter(s) and time period to update. 3. Ops specifies six-month interim or full update. 4. Update provides candidate databases for the update, Ops chooses. 5. Update runs the anomaly and gridding programs for the specified period. If you're both happy (or don't care, which is fine too) I'll pass them onto the BADC. Cheers Harry Ian "Harry" Harris Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom 3356. 2008-12-04 17:51:56 ______________________________________________________ cc: Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan.Solomon@noaa.gov, Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Phil Jones , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , Carl Mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steve Sherwood , Frank Wentz , "David C. Bader" date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:51:56 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: Many thanks! to: Peter Thorne Dear folks, Thank you for your support and advice. Both are greatly appreciated. The Director of PCMDI (Dave Bader) has responded by email to the U.S. DOE official who accused me of tarnishing Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's scientific reputation. LLNL's Associate Director of Physical and Life Sciences (Bill Goldstein) has also responded to the DOE official in question. While I am not privy to the full content of these communications, I believe their general tenor is that: 1) Steven McIntyre's blog should not be considered a source of reliable information on climate science issues; 2) The primary model and observational used in our International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to any researcher, including Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre is truly interested in replicating the calculations performed in our IJoC paper, and determining whether our conclusions were justified, he has all of the information necessary to do so. Given the Lab's response, and after careful consideration of your advice, I have decided that I will NOT seek to publish a letter in Nature or Science, outlining my position on Mr. McIntyre's requests for "climate model time series". Anything I write would be viewed by some as a self-serving attempt to "promote" our IJoC paper. As several of you have pointed out, there is also the real danger that focusing further public attention on this issue would exacerbate an already difficult situation. The irony here is that I do not seek or enjoy public attention. I am happiest when I'm in my office, simply doing science. I had hoped that, after expending a lot of time and energy on the response to Douglass et al., our IJoC paper would be published, and I could simply continue with my life and scientific career. That was an incredibly naive expectation. You would think that I'd be a bit smarter by now. The MSU issue has assumed iconic status for those who deny the reality of human effects on climate. No scientific evidence that we could provide - no matter how compelling - will ever alter the views of S. Fred Singer, Steven McIntyre, David Douglass, and John Christy. They need to preserve the icon. I still think that there is a need for some public airing of the issues raised by Steven McIntyre's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. We are seeing a pattern of behavior here - a pattern that began with Mr. McIntyre's "auditing" of Mike Mann, and then continued with investigations of Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, and Gavin Schmidt. Yesterday it Mr. McIntyre audited the hockey stick; today it's the GISS and CRU temperature datasets, and our comparison of modeled and observed temperature trends. Mr. McIntyre is not using FOIA requests as a vehicle for true scientific discovery. He does not seek to understand what we did, and why we did it. He has no interest in rational scientific debate. His intent is purely destructive - to suck us into a never-ending stream of requests for data, programs, explanations, emails, and even more data. I fully endorse the idea of writing a commentary on this matter in Nature or Science. That commentary should be written by someone outside the main circle of protagonists; by someone who can look at these issues a lot more dispassionately than I can. The commentary should cover the issue of what is - and what is not - legitimate game for FOIA requests. The commentary should also address the issue of how one determines the "reproducibility" of a scientist's results. Is it reasonable for Scientist B (or Citizen C) to request all of Scientist A's data, programs, experimental apparatus, etc., in order to replicate Scientist A's results? Should the "auditing" of Scientist A be done on Scientist B's publicly-accessible blog, in the 21st century equivalent of a public hanging? Who audits the auditor, and determines whether Scientist B or Citizen C has the expertise necessary to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of Scientist A's data, methods, and findings? I'm very angry about the events that have unfolded after publication of our paper, but have to find some way to "move on". I'm hopeful that I'll now be able to return to my research. That's all I want to do. Once again, many thanks for all your support and wise counsel. They mean a lot to me. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1176. 2008-12-05 09:12:43 ______________________________________________________ cc: Peter Thorne , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , Phil Jones , Steve Klein , Carl Mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steve Sherwood , Frank Wentz , "David C. Bader" date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:12:43 -0700 from: Susan Solomon subject: Re: Many thanks! to: "Thomas R. Karl" , santer1@llnl.gov Ben et al I would like to state here that the entire community greatly appreciates Ben's work. In my own view, his taking a route to put his own research on his front burner (instead of this rather silly fight) is not only good for him, it's good for all of us. Thanks, Ben, for all you do. Tom's point is a good one. Other groups who might be helpful in such an effort could include the Union of Concerned Scientists. best Susan At 11:07 AM -0500 12/5/08, Thomas R. Karl wrote: >Ben -- your last points are very pertinent. I know that AMS is >thinking about how to address blogs and scientific papers, but FOIs >may also play here. Perhaps we should think about raising this >issue both to AGU and AMS? Just thinking out loud (I know this can >be dangerous!) > >Tom > >Ben Santer said the following on 12/4/2008 8:51 PM: >>Dear folks, >> >>Thank you for your support and advice. Both are greatly appreciated. >> >>The Director of PCMDI (Dave Bader) has responded by email to the >>U.S. DOE official who accused me of tarnishing Lawrence Livermore >>National Laboratory's scientific reputation. LLNL's Associate >>Director of Physical and Life Sciences (Bill Goldstein) has also >>responded to the DOE official in question. While I am not privy to >>the full content of these communications, I believe their general >>tenor is that: >> >>1) Steven McIntyre's blog should not be considered a source of >>reliable information on climate science issues; >> >>2) The primary model and observational used in our International >>Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to any >>researcher, including Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre is truly >>interested in replicating the calculations performed in our IJoC >>paper, and determining whether our conclusions were justified, he >>has all of the information necessary to do so. >> >>Given the Lab's response, and after careful consideration of your >>advice, I have decided that I will NOT seek to publish a letter in >>Nature or Science, outlining my position on Mr. McIntyre's requests >>for "climate model time series". Anything I write would be viewed >>by some as a self-serving attempt to "promote" our IJoC paper. As >>several of you have pointed out, there is also the real danger that >>focusing further public attention on this issue would exacerbate an >>already difficult situation. >> >>The irony here is that I do not seek or enjoy public attention. I >>am happiest when I'm in my office, simply doing science. I had >>hoped that, after expending a lot of time and energy on the >>response to Douglass et al., our IJoC paper would be published, and >>I could simply continue with my life and scientific career. >> >>That was an incredibly naive expectation. You would think that I'd >>be a bit smarter by now. The MSU issue has assumed iconic status >>for those who deny the reality of human effects on climate. No >>scientific evidence that we could provide - no matter how >>compelling - will ever alter the views of S. Fred Singer, Steven >>McIntyre, David Douglass, and John Christy. They need to preserve >>the icon. >> >>I still think that there is a need for some public airing of the >>issues raised by Steven McIntyre's Freedom of Information Act >>(FOIA) request. We are seeing a pattern of behavior here - a >>pattern that began with Mr. McIntyre's "auditing" of Mike Mann, and >>then continued with investigations of Phil Jones, Jim Hansen, and >>Gavin Schmidt. Yesterday it Mr. McIntyre audited the hockey stick; >>today it's the GISS and CRU temperature datasets, and our >>comparison of modeled and observed temperature trends. Mr. McIntyre >>is not using FOIA requests as a vehicle for true scientific >>discovery. He does not seek to understand what we did, and why we >>did it. He has no interest in rational scientific debate. His >>intent is purely destructive - to suck us into a never-ending >>stream of requests for data, programs, explanations, emails, and >>even more data. >> >>I fully endorse the idea of writing a commentary on this matter in >>Nature or Science. That commentary should be written by someone >>outside the main circle of protagonists; by someone who can look at >>these issues a lot more dispassionately than I can. The commentary >>should cover the issue of what is - and what is not - legitimate >>game for FOIA requests. >> >>The commentary should also address the issue of how one determines >>the "reproducibility" of a scientist's results. Is it reasonable >>for Scientist B (or Citizen C) to request all of Scientist A's >>data, programs, experimental apparatus, etc., in order to replicate >>Scientist A's results? Should the "auditing" of Scientist A be done >>on Scientist B's publicly-accessible blog, in the 21st century >>equivalent of a public hanging? Who audits the auditor, and >>determines whether Scientist B or Citizen C has the expertise >>necessary to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of >>Scientist A's data, methods, and findings? >> >>I'm very angry about the events that have unfolded after >>publication of our paper, but have to find some way to "move on". >>I'm hopeful that I'll now be able to return to my research. That's >>all I want to do. >> >>Once again, many thanks for all your support and wise counsel. They >>mean a lot to me. >> >>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) 422-3840 >>FAX: (925) 422-7675 >>email: santer1@llnl.gov >>---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1897. 2008-12-08 11:55:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)" , "Osborn Timothy Dr (ENV)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:55:48 -0000 from: "Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)" subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Phil, It is a condition of the right of a data subject to their personal information that the we are not obliged to supply any information unless we receive the request in writing, such fee as we might require, and such information that we might 'reasonably require' to satisfy ourselves as to the identity of the individual making the request. (section 7(2) and (3), DPA). So, to answer your question, no, we don't have to respond unless we get the £10. Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when you delete it. Section 77 of the FOIA state as follows: 77. (1) Where (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled. (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority. (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. If information is deleted as part of an ongoing records management retention schedule, then it can and should proceed. Deleting information in response to a request is an offence as noted above. Cheers, Dave ______________________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 1:31 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 Dave, Do I understand it correctly - if he doesn't pay the £10 we don't have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I'm not wasting my time going through these. Cheers Phil At 09:51 25/11/2008, you wrote: Gents, Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the substance of Mr. McIntyre's comments but now have to handle his request under DPA (which means a troll through your files for material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under the DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that individual and subject to access under a DPA subject access request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all to be careful in what you put in your correspondence. As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, £10, and a form before we proceed but I do assume that all will be forthcoming upon request. We then have 40 calendar days to respond. Cheers, Dave ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Steve McIntyre [[1] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 9:28 PM To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB) Subject: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 Dear Mr Palmer, Dr Philip Jones of your university recently sent the following email to 17 climate scientists, commenting unfavorably on my FOI inquiry FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01. Please note that I had not made any public disclosure of this follow-up inquiry. Under the Data Protection Act, I request that you provide me with any other "personal records" pertaining to me, including any correspondence received by or sent by UEA and/or CRU. In addition, in the email, Jones made false and misleading statements regarding my inquiry to you and I request that you deal with these statements according to your responsibilities. Jones said that "we put up all the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities)". This statement was untrue. Some ring width and density series were not available - they are the ones that I requested in Item 5. Had Jones put up "all" the series, then this request would have been unnecessary. Because CRU did not put up "all" the data, it was entirely reasonable for me to request the missing data. Jones' misrepresentation of the inquiry creates a bad impression of me, in a situation where the fault lay with CRU. Jones also complained that I want to "know why some individual series were excluded from the chronologies" and complained that "if they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded." My inquiry pertained to inconsistencies between the list of sites provided in reponse to my FOI request and the procedures reported in the original articles and/or the website and was entirely reasonable. I have considerable personal experience with reporting requirements for mineral exploration fieldwork, which is strictly regulated by securities commissions, and am quite confident that, contrary to Jones' allegations, the above inconsistencies do not arise out of the exigencies of fieldwork, but out of avoidable inaccuracy on the part of CRU in describing the procedures actually used. Again, Jones' misrepresentation of the situation creates a bad impression of me, when the fault lay with CRU. Regards, Steve McIntyre -----Original Message----- From: Phil Jones [[2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:43 AM To: santer1@llnl.gov; Steve McIntyre Cc: Thorne, Peter; Leopold Haimberger; Karl Taylor; Tom Wigley; John Lanzante; Susan Solomon; Melissa Free; peter gleckler; Thomas R Karl; Steve Klein; carl mears; Doug Nychka; Gavin Schmidt; Steven Sherwood; Frank Wentz; Professor Glenn McGregor Subject: Re: FW: Santer et al 2008 Ben, Your response is already up on the Climate Audit site, and when I looked there were over 50 comments. Don't feel picked on - we in CRU had another FOI request related to tree-ring data yesterday as well. It is in a similar vein. We put up all the individual tree-ring series (widths, densities) - i.e. what we consider the raw data. He already had the chronologies. He now wants to know why some individual series were excluded from the chronologies and why some chronologies were excluded in subsequent analyses. This time they have asked for manuals, computer code and correspondence explaining the exclusions! It seems neverending. If they just did some paleo fieldwork with trees, corals, sediment cores they might understand why some samples are excluded. I would urge the 4 NOAA people on the paper to make a joint response to the FOI request when it filters through that the raw data for our paper are all publically available. I know it's not in their (skeptic) make up, but the sooner they get their hands dirty with the sorts of analyses we/you've done for this and many other papers the better. They seem only to want to come in at the interpretational end, particularly on the statistical side. Cheers Phil At 20:10 10/11/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Mr. McIntyre, > >I gather that your intent is to "audit" the findings of our >recently-published paper in the International Journal of Climatology >(IJoC). You are of course free to do so. I note that both the >gridded model and observational datasets used in our IJoC paper are >freely available to researchers. You should have no problem in >accessing exactly the same model and observational datasets that we >employed. You will need to do a little work in order to calculate >synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate >model atmospheric temperature information. This should not pose any >difficulties for you. Algorithms for calculating synthetic MSU >temperatures have been published by ourselves and others in the >peer-reviewed literature. You will also need to calculate >spatially-averaged temperature changes from the gridded model and >observational data. Again, that should not be too taxing. > >In summary, you have access to all the raw information that you >require in order to determine whether the conclusions reached in our >IJoC paper are sound or unsound. I see no reason why I should do >your work for you, and provide you with derived quantities (zonal >means, synthetic MSU temperatures, etc.) which you can easily compute yourself. > >I am copying this email to all co-authors of the 2008 Santer et al. >IJoC paper, as well as to Professor Glenn McGregor at IJoC. > >I gather that you have appointed yourself as an independent arbiter >of the appropriate use of statistical tools in climate research. >Rather that "auditing" our paper, you should be directing your >attention to the 2007 IJoC paper published by David Douglass et al., >which contains an egregious statistical error. > >Please do not communicate with me in the future. > >Ben Santer >Steve McIntyre wrote: >>Could you please reply to the request below, Regards, Steve McIntyre >> >>-----Original Message----- >>*From:* Steve McIntyre [[3] mailto:stephen.mcintyre@utoronto.ca] >>*Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2008 1:29 PM >>*To:* ' (santer1@llnl.gov)' >>*Subject:* Santer et al 2008 >>Dear Dr Santer, >> >>Could you please provide me either with the monthly model data (49 >>series) used for statistical analysis in Santer et al 2008 or a >>link to a URL. I understand that your version has been collated >>from PCMDI ; my interest is in a file of the data as you used it (I >>presume that the monthly data used for statistics is about 1-2 MB) . >> >>Thank you for your attention, >> >>Steve McIntyre > > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >----- >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) 422-3840 >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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3791. 2008-12-08 19:49:18 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT) from: "Tim Osborn" subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01 to: "Jones Philip Prof" Hi Phil! re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and cc'd to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI if a request is made for it during that time!]... I assume that you didn't delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring clean of various other emails that hadn't been requested, as part of your regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to avoid it being misunderstood. :-) The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI, EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via email. It's such a shame that the skeptics' vexatious use of this legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions then we may need to avoid it. I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular routine of deleting old emails! Cheers Tim 1814. 2008-12-09 08:16:14 ______________________________________________________ cc: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" date: Tue Dec 9 08:16:14 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: FW: Media Coverage - Mon 8 Dec to: "Dunford Simon Mr (MAC)" Simon, Working on the press release. There was a small story in the Guardian on Saturday. If any one involved in a leak it was the Met Office! Date still next week for the official value on the 15/16th. Cheers Phil At 13:07 08/12/2008, Dunford Simon Mr (MAC) wrote: Hi Phil Scroll down for coverage of 2008 climate figures. Is this a leak? Do you have a date for the press release yet? Should I be contacting the Met Office soon? Thanks, Simon Simon Dunford, Press Officer, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. Tel:+44 (0)1603 592203 [1]www.uea.ac.uk/comm ___________________________________________________________________________________ From: Sheldon Emily Ms (MAC) [[2]mailto:E.Sheldon@uea.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:41 PM Subject: Media Coverage - Mon 8 Dec Press Office University of East Anglia Media Coverage 8 December 2008 The Mail on Sunday 7/12/08 P 11 - Millers tale of witch hunts, adultery and Marilyn Feature on Arthur Miller: the Definitive Biography written by Chris Bigsby (AMS) AND Manchester Evening News 6/12/08 P8 A lesson in the art of biography writing AND The Independent 6/12/08 P15 - Five best talks & festivals Talk by Prof Chris Bigsby (AMS) at National Theatre on his recent biography of Arthur Miller. Evening News Online 8/12/08 Call to make Hall open to all Norwich Society call for public access to Earlham Hall. [3]http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/Access/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News &tBrand=enonline&tCategory=access&itemid=NOED06%20Dec%202008%2010%3A43%3A55%3A527 Evening News Online 8/12/08 Severed finger wont stop trumpet player UEA music graduate, Sam Bramley, vows to continue playing trumpet after horrific injury. [4]http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/Access/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News &tBrand=enonline&tCategory=access&itemid=NOED06%20Dec%202008%2010%3A52%3A31%3A470 EDP 8/12/08 P23 A concert that provided much for us to enjoy Write up of UEA Symphony Orchestra and Choir event at St Andrews Hall. The Observer Online 7/12/08 Blood Sport: Hunting in Britain since 1066 Review of Emma Griffins (HIS) book on the history of hunting. [5]http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/dec/07/blood-sport-emma-griffin AND The Independent Online 28/11/08 Blood Sport by Emma Griffin [6]http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/blood-sport-by-emma-gri ffin-1037768.html Evening News 6/12/08 P4 Haircut offer to send books off to Africa Norwich hairdressers help UEA students raise £3000 to send textbooks to children in Africa. EDP 6/12/08 P35 Consult the public properly about Hall Letter expressing concern over sale of Earlham Hall to UEA. EDP (Sunday Supplement) 6/12/08 P4/5 The trees of our lifetime Feature on local artist Susan Taylor. UEA mentioned. BBC Radio Nottingham 6/12/08 Former LAW student Tim Handley interviewed after winning the Volunteer of the Year award for his voluntary work while at UEA. AND Nottingham Evening Post 6/12/08 P9 Caring student Tim picks up top award Great Yarmouth Advertiser Online 6/12/08 Doctors bare all for calendar UEA medical students strip off for charity calendar [7]http://www.advertiser24.co.uk/content/advertiser24/news/story.aspx?brand=NOROnline&ca tegory=News&tBrand=NOROnline&tCategory=News&itemid=NOED05%20Dec%202008%2010%3A06%3A44%3A 607 Times Literary Supplement 5/12/08 P19 Personal and Domestic Review of UEA creative writing anthology 2008. The Guardian Online 5/12/08 2008 will be coolest year of the decade Item on global temperature for 2008 compared to other years this decade. Data jointly compiled by CRU & Hadley Centre. [8]http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather AND Science News Online 5/12/08 [9]http://esciencenews.com/sources/the.guardian.science/2008/12/05/climate.scientists.sa y.2008.will.be.coolest.year.decade AND Red Orbit Online 6/12/08 Global warming remains a threat despite cool 2008 [10]http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1604321/global_warming_remains_a_threat/index.h tml?source=r_science Felixstowe Advertiser 4/12/08 P15 Brave Tom is an inspiration Piece on UEA student, Tom Roden, who is battling cancer. Leek Post and Times 3/12/08 P2 Hot rocks Courtneys in love with Emilys gothic-chic jewellery Piece on jewellery designer, Emily Gray, former UEA Law & History of Art student. Sudbury Mercury - 27/11/08 P3 - £60m boost paves way for college rebuilding West Suffolk College receives funding for rebuilding its campus at Bury St Edmunds. UEA mentioned. ___________________________________________________________________________________ Other Higher Education Headlines 08.12.08 Newspaper headlines (and online links where possible) 06.12.08 First class news (The Guardian, Work, 06.12.08, p16) 07.12.08 Most adults failed to gauge real ability (The Observer, 07.12.08, p26) [11]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/07/schools-a-levels-gcses-education 08.12.08 Stressful exams no mark of abilities (The Daily Telegraph, 08.12.08, p8) Why exams are no real mark of our ability (Daily Mail, 08.12.08, p17) [12]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092684/School-results-predictor-future-succ ess-new-research-finds--just-look-John-Lennon-Winston-Churchill-Sir-Richard.html Academy abandons A-levels (Evening Standard, 05.12.08, p18) The fairness and rewards of a university place (The Times, 08.12.08, p25) [13]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5303385.ece Additional online stories Funding nightmare [14]http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Funding-nightmare.4769667.jp Scottish universities still slipping behind [15]http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2473323.0.Scottish_universit ies_still_slipping_behind.php Challenging advice [16]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/douglasfraser/2008/12/challenging_advice.htm l Minister checks on science exams [17]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7765769.stm Don't deny campus radicalisation [18]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/06/islam-religion-edmunds Mind over matter [19]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/06/mental-health-university-students Guardian university guide 2010 [20]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/05/universityguide-students Devolution 'creates university funding gap' [21]http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/dec/05/devolved-universities-funding Emily Sheldon Communications Assistant Marketing and Communications Division University of East Anglia Tel: +44 (0)1603 593496 Please note I work Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3355. 2008-12-09 12:58:41 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 9 12:58:41 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: News release on 2008's climate] to: David Parker , "Stott, Peter" David, Peter, Have added a quote in - something I would have said! Can you send me the final version, when agreed at your end? I know we don't want to say this, but if reporters ask about the 1940s/1950s SST issue from the Thompson et al paper in May this year, we should say we are working on this and expect to submit a paper in the spring. I guess at most this will increase recent temps by a maximum of 0.05, but more likely 0.03deg C, but we won't mention a figure. Cheers Phil X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,740,1220227200"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,32";a="573294" Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: News release on 2008's climate] From: David Parker To: "Jones, Phil" Cc: "Stott, Peter" Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:16:19 +0000 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-35.0.4.el4_6.1) X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(none,0) X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from UEA:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 14168157 - b540006301e1 (trained as not-spam) X-Antispam-Training-Forget: [1]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=14168157&m=b540006301e1&c=f X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: [2]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=14168157&m=b540006301e1&c=n X-Antispam-Training-Spam: [3]https://canit.uea.ac.uk/b.php?i=14168157&m=b540006301e1&c=s X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.185 Phil Thanks. We've decided to use 2000-2008 because that makes the later period a year longer. Here is the draft as it now stands: do you want a CRU quote in it? David On Tue, 2008-12-09 at 09:50 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > Peter, David, > I thought it would be from model runs with all and with just > natural forcing. > I just wanted to make sure you had the runs and the calculations to > back > up the statements. The numbers seem and sound right. > As for the decades, it is back to the old chestnut of when a decade > ends and a new one begins - and there wasn't a year 0! I wanted > a statement about the nineties versus the noughties, but I think > the decades end with the years ending in 0, so 2000 was the last > year of the 1990s. It is a pedantic point, so I'm happy to use > either, > as it won't make any difference. > > We just need the statement in to indicate that the present decade > is > warmer than the previous by the amount expected (0.16). > > I've just received the 'Avoiding dangerous climate change' doc that > Vicky > prepared for Poznan. > > That has in the following bit of text. > > Some commentators have suggested that global arming has stopped. This > is not the case. The evidence is clear - in the long term, global > temperatures are > rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise. > > Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer that the > last - > natural phenomena mean that some years will be much warmer and others > cooler. > The El Nino in 1998 gave rise to a record-breaking warm year and the > La Nina > in 2007 and 2008 led to temporary cooling. Despite this, 11 of the > last 13 years > are the warmest ever on record. > > We are saying this in slightly different words. > > We are still on for a Dec 15/16 release. I can get the UEA press > office on > this for the East Anglian region next week, with you doing the > nationals. > > Cheers > Phil > > > > At 15:56 08/12/2008, Peter Stott wrote: > > All, > > > > A slightly revised version following earlier comments. > > The Press Office will want to press-ify it - I imagine that could > > include quotes. > > > > Nikos has calculated from model runs with all vs models runs with > > natural how much warmer we are now relative to pre-industrial and > > comes > > to about 0.68C for last decade which taking the ongoing trends into > > account means approx 0.75C warmer at present than we would have > > been. > > The naturally forced model is pretty flat with some natural warming > > early in the 20th century but volcanic cooling later on. > > > > Don't we want to compare the noughties with the nineties (ie > > 1990-1999 > > vs 2000-2008) rather than 2001-2008 average versus the 1991-2000 > > average ? > > > > Peter > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:29 +0000, David Parker wrote: > > > Peter, Gareth > > > > > > Phil Jones has made comments below on attribution aspects of the > > draft > > > press release - maybe we can discuss revised wording on Monday or > > > Tuesday. My first attempt is attached. > > > > > > David > > > email message attachment, "Forwarded message - Re: News release on > > > 2008's climate" > > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:29 +0000, David Parker wrote: > > > > David, > > > > A few comments on the draft - having got back from > > Cambridge. > > > > > > > > First 2 paras OK. > > > > > > > > Para 3 - need to look at the longish sentence. The 0.75 deg C > > is > > > > the problem here. In CH 3 we said there was about this warming > > from > > > > 1907-2006 (and also with the last 5/6 years wrt 1850-99). > > Anyway > > > > the 0.75 implies all 20th century warming is down to us. So > > without > > > > anthropogenic forcing now we would be as cold as it was about > > 1920. > > > > > > > > Some of the warming is natural. What you need to compare is a > > > > model run with all forcing and one with only natural forcing. > > I reckon > > > > this difference would be nearer 0.5 to 0.6. > > > > > > > > I'd like you to emphasize the need to look at decadal-scale > > values - > > > > as Peter seems to have done in the Guardian. We do have short > > memories > > > > as Myles says > > > > > > > > [4]http://www.scenta.co.uk/nature/news/cit/1737645/-008-will-be- > > coolest-year-of-the-decade.htm > > > > > > > > Another way to do this is to look at the 2001-2008 average > > versus > > > > the 1991-2000 average. > > > > Maybe we did this last year - I've a short memory! > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 17:45 04/12/2008, you wrote: > > > > >Phil > > > > > > > > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > > > >If December is cold, CET could be the lowest since 1991, but > > this may > > > > >not be certain as soon as Dec 16th. So I haven't included it. > > Likewise > > > > >annual precipitation may be unexceptional if December is dry. > > We have of > > > > >course included the UK in a large file we sent to WMO and it > > will get > > > > >into the BAMS review of 2008 and the Weather paper. But if you > > wish to > > > > >include a UK paragraph, feel free to make suggestions! > > > > > > > > > >There will be a separate 2009 prediction release in early > > January. > > > > > > > > > >Have a good time in Cambridge, > > > > > > > > > >David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:19 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > David, > > > > > > Thanks. I'll look at this tomorrow. In Cambridge > > tomorrow > > > > > > - with Rob/Philip, some sort of ACRE meeting. Will get > > comments > > > > > > back over the weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you planning the longer press release with more > > graphs and > > > > > > UK values? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also will there be the 2009 prediction press release > > early in > > > > > > the New Year? > > > > > > If there is I'll know not to say anything about that in > > mid December! > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 17:02 04/12/2008, you wrote: > > > > > > >Phil, Cathy, Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Here is a draft of our proposed press release on 2008's > > global climate - > > > > > > >inputs came mainly from Peter Stott and John Kennedy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Comments welcome. It is due for release on Tuesday December > > 16th after > > > > > > >the WMO press release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > >David > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. Peter Stott > > Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK > > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 > > Mobile: 07753880683 > > E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [5]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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3249. 2008-12-10 10:14:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A quick question to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, Haven't got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I'm not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I'm not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails - unless this was 'normal' deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn't paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email. Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner's Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn't! I'm sounding like Sir Humphrey here! McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responses all get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them. On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a couple from McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan. The latter relate to Wei-Chyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated by SUNY, Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY! [1]http://www.informath.org/ The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Keith reply. The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two others from Holland. So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for putting things up - only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads on CA. I got this email over the weekend - see end of this email. This relates to what Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as well - a chatty one saying why didn't I respond to keep these people on CA quiet. I've ignored both. Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to answer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how much money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that they don't give money - they award grants based on open competition. DEFRA's system also told them there were no awards to CRU, as when we do get something it is down as UEA! I've occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests - all from Holland. Cheers Phil Dear Mr Jones What are you frightened of? Is it that suddenly mugs like me who pay our taxes suddenly realise we are paying your wages. Please respond to Climate Audit's valid queries otherwise I will contact my MP. Please see below. Quote From CA As it happens, I have experience in mining exploration programs and I can assure Phil Jones that, contray to this experience enabling me to "understand why some samples are excluded", it gives me exactly the opposite perspective. It makes it virtually impossible for me to think up valid explanations for "excluding" some samples. It's illegal in the businesses that I know. Anyhow, CRU answered as follows: We have checked our files and no manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence are available. We can confirm, however, that we did not use a different Omoloyla data set and therefore there is no further data to provide. Your behaviour is absoulutely outrageous. Best regards Stuart Harmon At 01:48 09/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of FOIA requests that you've received from Steven McIntyre? 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) 422-3840 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187. 2008-12-10 11:11:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: santer1@llnl.gov, wigley@ucar.edu, Mike Wallace , Phil Jones date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:11:46 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: A new paper on 20th century global-mean temperature variability to: David Thompson David This looks like a very valuable contribution. I have a few suggestions. Firstly you may find the following two publications of interest Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2005: Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022760.[[1]Paper (.pdf)] Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai, 2007: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030524. [2][PDF] The first paper notes that there are strong relationships between precipitation and surface temperature that vary with latitude and season. Over land there is a strong negative correlation in summer extratropical continents and year round in tropics so that conditions are either hot and dry or cool and wet. So this relates to wetter conditions also being cloudier and changing SH and LH surface fluxes, etc. In winter at high lats the correlation is positive which is Clausius Clapeyron: warm and moist advection and ability of air to hold moisture. Over oceans there are also some interesting relations, some governed by ENSO: high SSTs go with rain. Anyway you mention natural variability and the SLP field but some of this may be through the precip relation, not just flow of air from land to ocean to land etc. You may want to at least mention this and the assoc mechanisms, and it may we a way to further reduce the "noise"? The second paper may be of interest wrt the volcanic eruption effects and the radiative forcing, and again the huge effect on rain and runoff. Although not speculated on in the paper, we show that after Pinatubo there is a decrease in land precip. We think this comes about in two stages. 1) the land cools more than ocean and the precip moves off shore, but at this stage there is no global decease in precip; then 2) there is a decease in evaporation and thus in global precip. For your study, this has two implications. 1) Part of the mechanism for influencing temperatures also comes through the precip link noted in paper (1) above. (2) In your Fig 7 you have the effects stratified by total, land and ocean, and it would be of interest to also see land minus ocean, and see whether the response is indeed quicker over land. Eyeballing it, it seems so. Now a few other comments on the paper. These are offered in the hope that it will help give the paper the impact it deserves. 1) The figures could use some work. Actually a lot of work. a) I urge you to add the zero line on all the time series. This helps also to see whether the time series does have low frequency components. b) I urge you to add some labels on the y axis. At least 0 and plus and minus 0.1C. (c) This sort of thing could easily be done in Illustrator. If you don't use Illustrator for your figures, I strongly recommend it and can talk to you about it. You can input ps files and generate eps, with nice labels and all sorts of touch ups, control of line widths and dot-dash types etc. You can control the white space and layout nicely also. In Illustrator you can also "save for microsoft" and it generates png files that are ideal in size for word documents or powerpoint, and so the size of the files is much reduced (e.g. from what you have). d) Fig. 2 is hard to see the white lines. (e) Fig 13 needs units on x axis: months? 2) The natural variability can, of course, also be affected by climate change and warming. A central question is how ENSO changes with climate change, for instance. You method is good but you should acknowledge (more) that the "natural variability" may also contain some climate change signals. 3) The difference in the effective heat capacity may also reflect the tropics (ENSO) vs global nature for volcanoes? You may want to speculate about the implications of these figures for changes in solar forcing and especially the 111 year sun spot cycle. 4) Alan Robock and Caspar Amann have a new volcanic forcing time series, pub in press in JGR I believe. Hope these help Kevin David Thompson wrote: Dear Kevin, Ben, Tom, Hope all is well. Mike Wallace, Phil Jones, John Kennedy (Met Office) and myself are about to submit a paper on the time-history of 20th century global-mean temperatures. The study is a follow-on to our study last summer which documented the discontinuity in SSTs in ~1945. Anyway, the paper is being passed around the authors for one last look, and we thought you might appreciate the chance to comment on the manuscript before it's submitted. I understand everyone is busy, especially at this time of year. And it's likely one or more of you will get the paper to review. But if you're interested and have any general comments, we'd appreciate your thoughts. Our rough plan is to submit within the first couple weeks after the New Year. The paper is attached as a doc file. And the figures are online at: [3]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/outgoing/Figures_JClimate_Dec9.pdf Since it's at the (near-final) draft stage, please treat the work as confidential for now (ie please don't distribute the text or figures). Thanks, Dave = _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 = -- **************** 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 5134. 2008-12-10 15:57:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 10 15:57:43 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: WG comments - quick response to: C G Kilsby Chris, How much do you think we're going to do? Even restricting this to the 10 WG sites, the permutations are going to beat us. With all the non-rainfall variables we can't throw all the days together, else the seasonal cycle will obscure anything you want to see. To be able to see if 3>2>1 we'll need to restrict to individual months for temperature. Let's say we try this with a couple of temperature variables - mean monthly T and highest Tx. I expect 2 to be > 1 and 3>>2, but from looking at the model variants so far climate model uncertainty dwarfs WG uncertainty. Problem is much of this is down to wacky data. I'm beginning to think that the modelling has lost the real-world agreement between variables - which is what the WG assumes to still be the case! Colin has sent revised code to Vaz - it now runs through without hanging. This was only achievable by stopping the checks for silly numbers! Once you have some of the final cfs send down here - we need to look at them with those plots Colin did last week. Cheers Phil At 16:29 09/12/2008, you wrote: We already have sufficient info to start this: 1. 6190 obs = 30 years daily data (rainfall, temp, etc. and various indices of these) - can estimate mean + pdf or 10,50,90 %ile values by bootstrap etc. = natural variability 2. 6190 100 ensemble - can estimate WG "uncertainty" or pdfs for T, rainfall (various stats) = "WG uncertainty" 3. Future projections 1000 ensemble - pdfs as in 2 = "WG uncertainty" + ClimateModel uncertainty Expect 3>>2 and 2>~1 C _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 December 2008 16:06 To: C G Kilsby Subject: RE: WG comments - quick response Chris, Can you elaborate on the pdf idea? Not clear what you mean. Cheers Phil At 15:29 09/12/2008, you wrote: Yes - agree with all you say here and before. Alberto is after a full uncertainty analysis: a nice idea, but not realistic on this timescale, and we're not paid to do it! Something towards it would be useful/achievable though and will discuss here. Could do things like compare future pdfs of variables with pdf from control? (And same for extremes) Chris _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 December 2008 10:42 To: C G Kilsby Cc: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk Subject: WG comments - quick response Chris, I presume we're on the same wavelength over these two sets of comments - i.e. there isn't much to respond to. The extra detail could be done, but it isn't going to be that helpful to 99.9% of potential users. It is too detailed for the main report - and probably too much for the Annex. I can have a go at responding this weekend - if we get Tim's by then, if you want? The most important thing to add is Section 4 - with some extremes in the future, but we need the final set of cfs for this. Cheers Phil Chris, These two sets of comments seem fine - let's hope Tim Carter's are in a similar vein. So good choices so far! I'm not sure that these are quite the reviews DEFRA were expecting, but they are positive for us. Elaine Barrow Not much to respond to. Elaine seems confused in para 3 about data preparation and the users checking their data. She's misunderstood that the WG is prefitted, by us! Ringway and LHR weren't the best sites. We do have the other 8. The validity of the IVRs in the future has been tested - in our section 3. Also she's not seen the WG User's Guide. Alberto Montanari Seems to want a lot more detail that we could do, but I'm sure that most people wouldn't even look at. We could provide goodness-of-fit diagrams, R*R of all the fits etc, but is this going to help the user understand uncertainty - certainly not if the cfs's have the range they currently do! Again there seems to be a few things that haven't been understood, which is useful. If these two can't understand what we've done. Happier with Dave Sexton's reply and that they will be clipping the values in the model variants. Colin is still checking the code Ag is using. There seem one or two small issues. Cheers Phil At 11:35 04/12/2008, Bryden, Clare wrote: Phil, Chris Please find two sets of review comments on the Weather Generator attached. Comments are still outstanding from Tim Carter, expected 11th December. <> <> Best regards Clare --- Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager Tel: 01392 884834 Mobile: 07717 156452 Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. _____________________________________________ From: Bryden, Clare Sent: 27 November 2008 09:30 To: 'myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk'; 'francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca'; 'C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk'; 'ctebaldi@climatecentral.org'; 'Alberto Montanari'; 'elaine.barrow@sasktel.net'; 'tim.carter@ymparisto.fi'; 'n.c.wells@soc.soton.ac.uk'; 'Jaak.Monbaliu@bwk.kuleuven.be'; 'corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no' Cc: 'b.j.hoskins@reading.ac.uk'; 'brian.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk'; 'Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)'; 'roger.street@ukcip.org.uk'; 'Warrilow, David (CEOSA)'; 'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'; 'c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk'; Jenkins, Geoff; Pope, Vicky; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Gordon, Chris; Murphy, James Subject: RE: Review of science in UKCIP08 product Dear All This is a reminder that tomorrow is the deadline for review comments. Thank you to those who have already been in touch. The review is free format. We have no expectations or limitations regarding number of pages. Please send your review via email to John Mitchell, cc'ed to this email, and I'd be grateful if you could copy them to me. Please note that your comments will be shared with the other reviewers, by publishing them on the review website. We won't edit them in any way, other than by converting to pdf. Best regards Clare --- Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager Tel: 01392 884834 Mobile: 07717 156452 Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. _____________________________________________ From: Bryden, Clare Sent: 20 October 2008 16:35 To: 'myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk'; 'francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca'; 'C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk'; 'ctebaldi@climatecentral.org' Cc: 'b.j.hoskins@reading.ac.uk'; 'brian.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk'; 'Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)'; 'roger.street@ukcip.org.uk'; 'Warrilow, David (CEOSA)'; 'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'; 'c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk'; Jenkins, Geoff; Pope, Vicky; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Gordon, Chris; Murphy, James Subject: Review of science in UKCIP08 product Dear All We understand from Defra that you have kindly agreed to review aspects of the UK 21st Century Climate Change Scenarios. I will be project managing the review on behalf of Defra. I attach a short note on the Terms of Reference for the Review. As mentioned in the original letter of invitation from Bob Watson, we would be grateful if you would review the section on probabilistic projections, and in particular to assess whether the methodology employed is appropriate for its purpose of delivering state-of-the-art estimates of the risk of different outcomes for UK climate, consistent with current understanding of key drivers of climate change, available climate model results and constraints offered by observations of historical climate. The review should not comment on such aspects as presentation to users or the contents of the reports. The review documents are available on a password-protected website. Please let me know if you cannot gain access for any reason. URL - [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/review3/ Login - icp0712 Password - Bar0meter Best regards Clare << File: ReviewUKCIP08_TOR_v2.pdf >> --- Clare Bryden Climate Account Manager Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 885196 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07717 156452 E-mail: clare.bryden@metoffice.gov.uk [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. New Met Office Climate Change Seminars - plan today to safeguard your future success [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/training/climatechange Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1829. 2008-12-11 09:00:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace , Phil Jones date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:00:32 -0700 from: David Thompson subject: Re: A new paper on 20th century global-mean temperature variability to: Kevin Trenberth Kevin, I agree. The signal of other aerosols is presumably isolated in the residuals (ie, perhaps as the cool-down in the 70s). We should clarify that in the text. -Dave On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: David I forgot to include one other aspect you may want to consider also: and that is the role of aerosol forcing. You do include the volcanic aerosol, and find a nice cleaner relationship, and so it implies that changes in other aerosol may also have a signal that is not accounted for. Kevin David Thompson wrote: Kevin, Thanks much for the helpful comments (and so quick!). Your points about the figures are well taken. I admit noting 'ticks at xx' is a little lazy, and that the reader would appreciate specific units on the axes. And I'll think about the precipitation relationships. I'm not sure I've ever seen a map of grid point precipitation regressed on global-mean temperatures (with ENSO removed), but it would be interesting if it turns out useful. Either way, I'll be sure to mention the work. Thanks, Dave On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: David This looks like a very valuable contribution. I have a few suggestions. Firstly you may find the following two publications of interest Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2005: Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022760.[[1]Paper (.pdf)] Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai, 2007: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030524. [2][PDF] The first paper notes that there are strong relationships between precipitation and surface temperature that vary with latitude and season. Over land there is a strong negative correlation in summer extratropical continents and year round in tropics so that conditions are either hot and dry or cool and wet. So this relates to wetter conditions also being cloudier and changing SH and LH surface fluxes, etc. In winter at high lats the correlation is positive which is Clausius Clapeyron: warm and moist advection and ability of air to hold moisture. Over oceans there are also some interesting relations, some governed by ENSO: high SSTs go with rain. Anyway you mention natural variability and the SLP field but some of this may be through the precip relation, not just flow of air from land to ocean to land etc. You may want to at least mention this and the assoc mechanisms, and it may we a way to further reduce the "noise"? The second paper may be of interest wrt the volcanic eruption effects and the radiative forcing, and again the huge effect on rain and runoff. Although not speculated on in the paper, we show that after Pinatubo there is a decrease in land precip. We think this comes about in two stages. 1) the land cools more than ocean and the precip moves off shore, but at this stage there is no global decease in precip; then 2) there is a decease in evaporation and thus in global precip. For your study, this has two implications. 1) Part of the mechanism for influencing temperatures also comes through the precip link noted in paper (1) above. (2) In your Fig 7 you have the effects stratified by total, land and ocean, and it would be of interest to also see land minus ocean, and see whether the response is indeed quicker over land. Eyeballing it, it seems so. Now a few other comments on the paper. These are offered in the hope that it will help give the paper the impact it deserves. 1) The figures could use some work. Actually a lot of work. a) I urge you to add the zero line on all the time series. This helps also to see whether the time series does have low frequency components. b) I urge you to add some labels on the y axis. At least 0 and plus and minus 0.1C. (c) This sort of thing could easily be done in Illustrator. If you don't use Illustrator for your figures, I strongly recommend it and can talk to you about it. You can input ps files and generate eps, with nice labels and all sorts of touch ups, control of line widths and dot-dash types etc. You can control the white space and layout nicely also. In Illustrator you can also "save for microsoft" and it generates png files that are ideal in size for word documents or powerpoint, and so the size of the files is much reduced (e.g. from what you have). d) Fig. 2 is hard to see the white lines. (e) Fig 13 needs units on x axis: months? 2) The natural variability can, of course, also be affected by climate change and warming. A central question is how ENSO changes with climate change, for instance. You method is good but you should acknowledge (more) that the "natural variability" may also contain some climate change signals. 3) The difference in the effective heat capacity may also reflect the tropics (ENSO) vs global nature for volcanoes? You may want to speculate about the implications of these figures for changes in solar forcing and especially the 111 year sun spot cycle. 4) Alan Robock and Caspar Amann have a new volcanic forcing time series, pub in press in JGR I believe. Hope these help Kevin David Thompson wrote: Dear Kevin, Ben, Tom, Hope all is well. Mike Wallace, Phil Jones, John Kennedy (Met Office) and myself are about to submit a paper on the time-history of 20th century global-mean temperatures. The study is a follow-on to our study last summer which documented the discontinuity in SSTs in ~1945. Anyway, the paper is being passed around the authors for one last look, and we thought you might appreciate the chance to comment on the manuscript before it's submitted. I understand everyone is busy, especially at this time of year. And it's likely one or more of you will get the paper to review. But if you're interested and have any general comments, we'd appreciate your thoughts. Our rough plan is to submit within the first couple weeks after the New Year. The paper is attached as a doc file. And the figures are online at: [3]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/outgoing/Figures_JClimate_Dec9.pdf Since it's at the (near-final) draft stage, please treat the work as confidential for now (ie please don't distribute the text or figures). Thanks, Dave = _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 = -- **************** 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [7]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 -- **************** 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 4834. 2008-12-11 11:14:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C G Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:14:00 +0000 from: "vassilis glenis" subject: Re: Queries re WG falling over and wacky numbers .. to: "Colin Harpham" Hi, Just to let you know that the WG didn't crash this time. However, it might be a good idea to use the previous version with the new set of data to check if there are still silly numbers in. thanks, vas On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Colin Harpham wrote: > All, > > The while loops already had a >1000 where the normalised variable is set to > the range -1...1, this was put in because the WG would occasionally hang > with certain observed data. However the exit condition of the loop still > held (between 0.0 and 2*mean - denormalised). With proper numbers this is > fine. I have now put a loop exit condition in for perturbed runs (only) > because the perturbed variable can it seems exceed 2*mean. > Temperature range can also become negative so I have set the range to 0.0 if > Trange<0.0. > Apart from Trange this mod does not do any filtering - silly number in, > silly number out. > I have done some random checks with the 'ini' files Vas sent and it seems > OK. > Vas, can you give the revised code a run and see if still hangs anywhere. > > Cheers > Colin > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Kilsby [mailto:c.g.kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] > Sent: 09 December 2008 15:58 > To: 'Phil Jones' > Cc: 'vassilis glenis'; Colin Harpham > Subject: Queries re WG falling over and wacky numbers .. > > Phil/Colin > > Having a chat with Vas re issues etc. Any ideas on the following Q's: > > 1. Looking at the numbers/cfs when it falls over: these are not all actually > extremes: more likely it is weird >combinations< of variables/cfs that > casues the problem. If so, clipping won't help!! > > Also, if this is the case, it shows that the corss-correlations of eth pdfs > of cfs are not high, and ill-conditioned vectors of cfs result. We would > have been better off using the WG cross correlations (IVRs) to determine the > VP, sunshine, wind etc rather than fixing the cfs for these with the > much-vaunted "physically-based" relationships coming out of the RCMs !!! > > Is there any other "sanitising " strategy to spot these bad combinations? > Can we write some rules for what we would expect, and report back/exclude > the run if they are non-physical ?? > > Or do we just accept this as part of the "statistical" rather than > "physical/deterministic" approach?! > > 2. What is this "while loop" that your WG follows when it falls over (for > VP?) ? > What happens if you jump out after (say) 100 iterations as a fail safe? > > Could you set something up to log this if it happens, rather than the code > just hanging? > > (Ideally won't need this, if the clipping and sanitising works, but I fear > this won't happen 100% !!) > > Chris > > > 3304. 2008-12-12 21:47:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:11 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: On corrections during World War II to: Phil Jones Hi Phil--I was reviewing a paper and noting the differences during World War II and thought up another potential bias that I wonder if is being corrected for in the ship measurements. Namely, what I am wondering is if account was taken of the likely different loading (and so height of measurement--for air and water) of the ships as they went east and west. Basically, the ships were heavy laden going east and virtually empty coming back, and so there might well be a need to correct the observations accordingly. Just a thought--as the only place the models and observations seem different is over the ocean during WWII. Best, Mike 5347. 2008-12-15 07:26:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:26:36 -0800 from: Lisa Graumlich subject: Re: NERC proposal to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom and Keith, I'm happy to act as a reviewer and hope that the NERC proposal fares well in the review process. Keith, get better! This is a terrible time of year to be ill. Best wishes, Lisa On Dec 15, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Tom Melvin wrote: > Lisa, > > Keith drafted a letter to you and is sick with flu at the moment. > > Attached is the letter and a copy of the proposal that we submitted. > > 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. Lisa J. Graumlich Professor & Director School of Natural Resources The University of Arizona 325 BioSciences East Tucson AZ 85721 520-621-7255 (main office) 520-621-8801 (fax) lisag@cals.arizona.edu http://snr.arizona.edu 3849. 2008-12-15 14:17:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Dec 15 14:17:34 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: NERC proposal to: Martin Wilmking Martin, I would start by separating trees detrended with horizontal line from the others. Then try signal-free method. Should produce slight improvement but each chronology will have an "unknown" overall slope. Then try RCS method, but hopefuly with sufficient trees to use multiple RCS curves (for separate growth rate classes of tree) and see what resuls are like. Can group trees with a common signal when building RCS curves. Can you send me what data you have? I would only use it with your permission. Tom At 14:01 15/12/2008, you wrote: Tom, great if you could run the data! In the data I collected there is some pith offset (which we could "correct"), but since we are also using data collected by a colleague who worked at the same site and I dont know the offset, maybe it would be best to only test the traditional version? Martin PS I am ccing Dr. Jayendra Singh, who is currently working on the data Tom Melvin wrote: Martin, Yes. I am currently amending program but should be able to run the data through signal-free method, both curve-fitting and RCS. Hopefully programs will be sufficiently developed soon (with help and documentation) for you to be able to use them. Do you have any missing pith offset data for the sites. For "modern" chronologies it can make a significant difference to RCS. Tom At 13:20 15/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Tom, thanks for the copy! Dear Keith, get well soon. Martin btw, Tom, we have a data set from eastern Alaska, where we do have massive change in temp sensitivity (about 90% of sampled trees), if we detrend traditionally or with RCS. Would it be possible for you to test this data set with your signal free approach, since it seems as if the Canadian sites (Mackenzie Delta) close by are affected by standardization method? thanks martin Melvin wrote: Martin, Attached is a copy of the proposal that we submitted and an explanatory letter from Keith (who is sick with flu at the moment). Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- 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 [1]http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- 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 [2]http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de 862. 2008-12-15 18:10:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Parker , "Gromett, Barry" , "Jones, Phil" date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:48 +0000 from: Peter Stott subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release to: Myles Allen I don't like comparing a single year anomaly with an overall global warming anomaly - we have tried in the past to stop the press saying things like cooling over the last year has cancelled out half of the global warming over the century or whatever - but we have put an extra sentence in the release making the cooler than expected point. Peter On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 09:27 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > Hi David, > > OK, so the point is even stronger than I originally thought. We should > definitely point out that the downturn, although large compared to > temperature fluctuations so far this decade, is only one quarter of the > warming in average temperatures that we have experienced since the > 1970s. > > Peter/Barry: are you happy inserting an appropriate sentence in the > press release? > > Myles > -----Original Message----- > From: David Parker [mailto:david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk] > Sent: 12 December 2008 16:31 > To: Myles Allen > Cc: Stott, Peter; Gromett, Barry; Jones, Phil > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > Myles > > Yes, they are anomalies from 1961-90. The numbers are on > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual > (left-most column of data) except 2008 which John Kennedy is still > updating. > > David > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:27 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > > Thanks very much, David. It's a good thing we checked. > > > > Assuming the figures David has just sent are anomalies from 1961-90, > the > > sentence should read: > > > > Although 2008 was 0.1oC cooler than the average for 2000-07, it was > > still 0.3oC warmer than the average for 1961-90. > > > > Regards, > > > > Myles > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Parker [mailto:david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Sent: 12 December 2008 14:37 > > To: Myles Allen > > Cc: Stott, Peter; Gromett, Barry; Jones, Phil > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > Myles > > > > Here are the numbers with 2008 updated through November. The bars on > the > > ranking-diagram indicate the 95% confidence limits associated with > each > > year. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > > > > > 1990 0.248 > > 1991 0.197 > > 1992 0.055 > > 1993 0.102 > > 1994 0.163 > > 1995 0.276 > > 1996 0.123 > > 1997 0.355 > > 1998 0.515 > > 1999 0.262 > > 2000 0.238 > > 2001 0.400 > > 2002 0.455 > > 2003 0.457 > > 2004 0.432 > > 2005 0.479 > > 2006 0.422 > > 2007 0.403 > > 2008 0.313 > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 13:30 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > > > My numbers use HadCRUT3vgl, expressed as anomalies about 1961-90, > with > > > a 2008 figure of 0.296 above the 1961-90 mean. If this is correct, > > > then they should be OK at least to the 2 sig figs we quote. Of > course, > > > it would be good to double-check. > > > > > > > > > > > > Myles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Stott, Peter [mailto:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk] > > > Sent: 12 December 2008 13:14 > > > To: Myles Allen; Gromett, Barry; Phil Jones > > > Cc: Parker, David > > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in a meeting all day and can't usefully comment right now. > > > > > > David could supply numbers perhaps. ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Dr. Peter Stott > > > Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter. EX1 3PB, UK > > > Tel +44(0)1392 886646 Fax +44(0)1392885681 > > > Email: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk > > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Myles Allen [mailto:allen@atm.ox.ac.uk] > > > Sent: 12 December 2008 12:30 > > > To: Gromett, Barry; Phil Jones; Stott, Peter > > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we could be accused of "spinning" the numbers if we don't > > > highlight the fact that 2008 was cool relative to the temperatures > we > > > would expect given current climate drivers. I would be happy to > > > augment my quote to say: "This was a cool year relative to the > > > temperatures we have come to expect with global warming, but not > > > surprisingly so: we would have predicted around a 1-in-10 chance of > a > > > year this cold given the current state of the climate. But it would > > > have been considered a warm year even as recently as the 1970s and > > > 1980s, and a scorcher in Victorian times." > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think it would be good to put this right up front, for > example > > > by adding a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying > > > "Although this is 0.15oC cooler than the average for 2000-07, it is > > > still 0.3oC warmer than the average for 1961-90" (Peter, please > verify > > > numbers). I think it is important information that the downward > > > fluctuation (which many people will want to draw attention to) is > only > > > one third of the warming we have experienced since the 70s. I also > > > think saying 2008 was "still one of the 10 warmest years on record" > is > > > open to criticism. It was no. 10, so we should say so, or the likes > of > > > Steve McKintyre will start saying "Next thing, they'll be saying > > > `still one of the 16 warmest years on record...' and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you remind me what determines the length of the bars on that > plot? > > > I feel I should know... > > > > > > > > > > > > Myles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Gromett, Barry [mailto:barry.gromett@metoffice.gov.uk] > > > Sent: 11 December 2008 15:08 > > > To: Phil Jones; Myles Allen > > > Subject: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil/Myles > > > > > > The Met Office has led on a news release to be issued next week (16 > > > Dec) on 2008 global mean temperature. Peter Stott passed me quotes > > > from both of you and I wanted to check these with you. Could you > also > > > forward to respective press offices for information? Thanks very > much. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > <> > > > > > > Barry Gromett > > > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United > Kingdom > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886844 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07753 > > > 880380 > > > E-mail: barry.gromett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. Its contents are > > > provided 'in confidence' and may be covered by contractual, legal or > > > other privilege. If you are not the addressee, you may not use or > > > copy it to any other person. > > > > > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3395. 2008-12-15 19:03:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:32 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: More on WW II Temperatures to: David Parker , Phil Jones Hi Phil and David--I am at the AGU meeting in San Francisco and was at a session on El Nino variability. I was struck by the data record shown for the Nino3 region, which shows no El Nino in 1944 (there apparently was a few year warm period centered around 1941), which I think the NH record shows as the very warmest year (or was it 1943) in that period until the 1980s. I recall hearing that the explanation for that very warm year was that there must have been a very strong El Nino that year--but that is clearly not the case in the record that the ENSO community is using. To get such a strong global/NH warming, it must be really warm somewhere--and it is not the Nino3 region nor over the US. I am wondering if there are year by year (even month by month) temperature anomaly maps available on the Web to look at somewhere, for must be a very interesting anomaly map. [My plotting capabilities are pretty limited.] Best, Mike MacCracken Thanks--just a thought. It would sure also be nice if the reanalyses could go back to before WWII in order to be able to look at the consistency/inconsistency of changes over land and ocean. Looking at the US land temperature record, there is not a warming during WWII comparable to what seems to be happening over the ocean--it just seems more than coincidental that virtually the only region and time where the IPCC detection-attribution analysis showed inconsistency was over the ocean during WWII. I have not seen the results of that analysis by ocean basin, but that would sure seem interesting to look at in order to perhaps focus an effort to look very closely at what was going on--unusual weather or an inhomogeneity in the data. Best, Mike On 12/15/08 5:00 AM, "David Parker" wrote: > Mike > > Phil Jones thanks you for your message - his university mail server > won't let him reply to comcast.net. > > I doubt whether the effect you mention would systematically bias SST and > marine air temperature but it could increase the uncertainties so I have > passed this idea on to John Kennedy here and to Liz Kent at > eck@noc.soton.ac.uk who is analysing the marine air temperatures. > > David > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 >>>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:11 -0500 >>>> Subject: On corrections during World War II >>>> From: Mike MacCracken >>>> To: Phil Jones >>>> Thread-Topic: On corrections during World War II >>>> Thread-Index: AclczRi/1V/mstaz/U+rMHL8VKEkaw== >>>> X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >>>> X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) >>>> X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(pass,0) >>>> X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from > UEA:default,base:default) >>>> X-Canit-Stats-ID: 14397679 - 9dd86b7611c1 (trained as not-spam) >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >>>> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >>>> >>>> Hi Phil--I was reviewing a paper and noting the differences >> during World War >>>> II and thought up another potential bias that I wonder if is >> being corrected >>>> for in the ship measurements. Namely, what I am wondering is if >> account was >>>> taken of the likely different loading (and so height of >> measurement--for air >>>> and water) of the ships as they went east and west. Basically, the > ships >>>> were heavy laden going east and virtually empty coming back, and so > there >>>> might well be a need to correct the observations accordingly. >>>> >>>> Just a thought--as the only place the models and observations >> seem different >>>> is over the ocean during WWII. >>>> >>>> Best, 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 >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> 1441. 2008-12-16 16:38:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Hal Graboske , Cherry Murray , mann , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Bill Fulkerson , Professor Glenn McGregor , Luca Delle Monache , "Hack, James J." , Thomas C Peterson , vladeckd@law.georgetown.edu, miller21@llnl.gov, Michael Wehner , "Bamzai, Anjuli" date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:38:02 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: FOIA request to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear co-authors, I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). McIntyre asked for "Monthly average T2LT values for the 47 climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere". I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning. McIntyre's request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested records are to be provided to the "FOIA Point of Contact" (presumably at NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008. McIntyre's request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined "a set of 49 simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19 different models". McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre's understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful analysis of climate model results. Over the past several weeks, I've had a number of discussions about the "FOIA issue" with PCMDI's Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these discussions, I have decided to "publish" all of the climate model surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets through an internal "Review and Release" procedure, and then placing the datasets on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The website will also provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc. After publication of the model data, we will inform the "FOIA Point of Contact" that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly available for bona fide scientific research. Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others. By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be providing far more than the "Monthly average T2LT values" mentioned in McIntyre's FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings. All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw model temperature data. I hope that "publication" of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3401. 2008-12-16 16:43:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 16 16:43:40 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 to: ian renfrew Ian, I passed this onto you. If you have a research grant then you have to sign for things like this. What you have to do this time is just to sign it to say the goods or whatever have been received. I used to be able to do this for Nathan's grant, but it seems I can't now. I am already a signee on all grants, but since recently this has been restricted to just my grants. I complained about this, but was told I had to fill in a separate form for each grant! You should be able to look at this grant on the PMA system as I can't. But, I bet no-one in SCI Finance knows Nathan has left! Sorry to drop this on to you. I thought you were a signatory. Cheers Phil At 16:26 16/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Finance people, Can someone tell me what the conclusion of all this was? In plain english please. I've just received an invoice from Reading. Should I throw it in the bin? Or pass to someone - if so who. I am not qualified to sign it, as the expenses are not something I can check. thanks Ian Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) wrote: Yes and this is exactly what has happened with this grant. All costs for Reading and BAS were split out in the budget headings. So far there is no spend under these collaborator "W" headings. It seems to me that any invoices from Reading or BAS not charged to the "W" headings should be recharged as appropriate, by the school/faculty. Future invoices from the collaborators should be charged to the appropriate heading, as is the normal procedure. Richard __________________________________________________________________ *Dr Richard Doyle, Research Contracts Associate* University of East Anglia *Tel:* 01603 591483 | *Fax:* 01603 591550 *Email:* richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk |* Web:* [1]www.uea.ac.uk/reeo Research, Enterprise & Engagement Office, The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. University companies registered in England: UEA Enterprises Ltd (Company No. 02626389); UEA Consulting Ltd (Company No. 6477521); SYS Consulting Ltd (Company No. 04045713). Registered Office: The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ __________________________________________________________________ This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Janice Darch [[2]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk] *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 10:24 AM *To:* Doyle Richard Dr (RBS); Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD); npgillett@googlemail.com *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi , Collaborator and coIs are different things in NERC speak.If a PI from UEA and a CoI from say Reading put their costs on the same form the CoI's actual DA cost go into the same budget as ours and have to be split out at award stage by the PI's institution. 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:* Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) <[3]mailto:Richard.Doyle@uea.ac.uk> *To:* Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) <[4]mailto:E.Reynolds@uea.ac.uk> ; npgillett@googlemail.com <[5]mailto:npgillett@googlemail.com> ; Darch Janice Dr (SCI) <[6]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV) <[7]mailto:I.Renfrew@uea.ac.uk> ; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) <[8]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 10:00 AM *Subject:* RE: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear All, (Note my email address is richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk <[9]mailto:richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk>, I have not received any previous emails regarding this sent to r.doyle@uea.ac.uk <[10]mailto:r.doyle@uea.ac.uk>) The collaborator costs are under the following headings: Staff - WS Travel and Subsistence - WT Indirect and Estates - WI Invoices can be charged by the PI to these headings. Any invoices from Reading or BAS not charged under these headings should be recharged. I can send out copies of the subcontracts if required - let me know. If there are any further queries please let me know. Regards, Richard __________________________________________________________________ *Dr Richard Doyle, Research Contracts Associate* University of East Anglia *Tel:* 01603 591483 | *Fax:* 01603 591550 *Email:* richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk |* Web:* [11]www.uea.ac.uk/reeo Research, Enterprise & Engagement Office, The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. University companies registered in England: UEA Enterprises Ltd (Company No. 02626389); UEA Consulting Ltd (Company No. 6477521); SYS Consulting Ltd (Company No. 04045713). Registered Office: The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ __________________________________________________________________ This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 9:25 AM *To:* npgillett@googlemail.com; Darch Janice Dr (SCI); Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* RE: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear All It is not as simple as transferring money from one heading to another. All monies under DA (Directly Allocated) budgets go automatically to the School. All DI (Directly Incurred) budgets are those which are available for spend by the PI. Invoices cannot, therefore, be charged against DA budgets. I am surprised that Lesley Gray was written in under DA costs surely these should have gone under DI costs? I note that there is a heading on this account for Collaborators staff costs - is this budget by any chance related to Lesley Grays costs? Regards Elly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* npgillett@googlemail.com [[12]mailto:npgillett@googlemail.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Gillett *Sent:* 13 November 2008 18:17 *To:* Darch Janice Dr (SCI) *Cc:* Doyle Rebecca Ms (EDU); Mcgonagle Laura Mrs (SCI); Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, Thanks very much for looking into this - it sounds like you're well on the way to sorting this out. The earlier invoice has been paid already from the consumables budget of the project - it was for £3436.89 and I think this was all DA costs for Lesley Gray. I think the payment was authorized by Phil Jones sometime in August. If possible could we get the consumables budget reimbursed with these DA costs? Thanks very much, Nathan 2008/11/13 Janice Darch > Hi, Well Christine Webster just brought another invoice from Reading for DA costs to me to sign. It is : £679.47 for period 1.6.08 to 31.8.08 Invoice No 94180 Apparently SCI Fin were aware but had not until now set up codes to pay them from..However neither Christine nor I have seen the invoice that you are chasing which is an earlier one . If any one has it please let me know and it can be processed. 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:* Janice Darch <[14]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *To:* r.doyle@uea <[15]mailto:r.doyle@uea> *Cc:* Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca <[16]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> ; l.mcgonagle@uea <[17]mailto:l.mcgonagle@uea> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:42 AM *Subject:* Fw: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear Richard, It seem that UEA may have pocketed the DA costs for Reading in this contract rather than passing it on to them. I have copied this to Laura too.Can you look into this please as we don't want to pay Exeter out of the UEA DI money. Thanks, 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:* Nathan Gillett <[18]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> *To:* Janice Darch <[19]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* ian renfrew <[20]mailto:i.renfrew@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:45 PM *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, Thanks for the reply. I checked the proposal, see attached, and there is a £5736 cost estimate for Lesley Gray's salary costs (pg 5). On pg 4 this is listed under 'Directly allocated: Investigators' - so we did include this funding in the proposal. This money must have been paid to someone - either Reading or UEA. If UEA has not been paid this money, then perhaps it has been paid to Reading by NERC. If UEA has been paid this money, then there must be a mechanism for paying investigators' costs under FEC to other institutions - other projects must be in a similar situation. We definitely did not budget for this money to come out of the consumables budget. Cheers, Nathan 2008/11/11 Janice Darch > Dear Nathan, We cannot spend indirect costs as that money does not come in to ENV accounts. 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:* Nathan Gillett <[22]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> *To:* Janice Darch <[23]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* Jones Philip Prof (ENV) <[24]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk> ; ian renfrew <[25]mailto:i.renfrew@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2008 8:25 PM *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, I just wanted to check again that that invoice from Reading for £3436.89 has been adquately dealt with. I got the email below suggesting this had been paid out of consumables, but I'm pretty sure this is FEC costs for Lesley's time on the project, and therefore should have come out of project overheads, not consumables. In the proposal we budgeted for Lesley's FEC costs to come out of overheads rather than consumables. If this is impossible to change now, then no problem - but if possible, it would be good to kee0th century but volcanic cooling later on. > > > > Don't we want to compare the noughties with the nineties (ie > > 1990-1999 > > vs 2000-2008) rather than 2001-2008 average versus the 1991-2000 > > average ? > > > > Peter > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:29 +0000, David Parker wrote: > > > Peter, Gareth > > > > > > Phil Jones has made comments below on attribution aspects of the > > draft > > > press release - maybe we can discuss revised wording on Monday or > > > Tuesday. My first attempt is attached. > > > > > > David > > > email message attachment, "Forwarded message - Re: News release on > > > 2008's climate" > > > On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 17:29 +0000, David Parker wrote: > > > > David, > > > > A few comments on the draft - having got back from > > Cambridge. > > > > > > > > First 2 paras OK. > > > > > > > > Para 3 - need to look at the longish sentence. The 0.75 deg C > > is > > > > the problem here. In CH 3 we said there was about this warming > > from > > > > 1907-2006 (and also with the last 5/6 years wrt 1850-99). > > Anyway > > > > the 0.75 implies all 20th century warming is down to us. So > > without > > > > anthropogenic forcing now we would be as cold as it was about > > 1920. > > > > > > > > Some of the warming is natural. What you need to compare is a > > > > model run with all forcing and one with only natural forcing. > > I reckon > > > > this difference would be nearer 0.5 to 0.6. > > > > > > > > I'd like you to emphasize the need to look at decadal-scale > > values - > > > > as Peter seems to have done in the Guardian. We do have short > > memories > > > > as Myles says > > > > > > > > [4]http://www.scenta.co.uk/nature/news/cit/1737645/-008-will-be- > > coolest-year-of-the-decade.htm > > > > > > > > Another way to do this is to look at the 2001-2008 average > > versus > > > > the 1991-2000 average. > > > > Maybe we did this last year - I've a short memory! > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 17:45 04/12/2008, you wrote: > > > > >Phil > > > > > > > > > >Thanks. > > > > > > > > > >If December is cold, CET could be the lowest since 1991, but > > this may > > > > >not be certain as soon as Dec 16th. So I haven't included it. > > Likewise > > > > >annual precipitation may be unexceptional if December is dry. > > We have of > > > > >course included the UK in a large file we sent to WMO and it > > will get > > > > >into the BAMS review of 2008 and the Weather paper. But if you > > wish to > > > > >include a UK paragraph, feel free to make suggestions! > > > > > > > > > >There will be a separate 2009 prediction release in early > > January. > > > > > > > > > >Have a good time in Cambridge, > > > > > > > > > >David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 17:19 +0000, Phil Jones wrote: > > > > > > David, > > > > > > Thanks. I'll look at this tomorrow. In Cambridge > > tomorrow > > > > > > - with Rob/Philip, some sort of ACRE meeting. Will get > > comments > > > > > > back over the weekend. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you planning the longer press release with more > > graphs and > > > > > > UK values? > > > > > > > > > > > > Also will there be the 2009 prediction press release > > early in > > > > > > the New Year? > > > > > > If there is I'll know not to say anything about that in > > mid December! > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At 17:02 04/12/2008, you wrote: > > > > > > >Phil, Cathy, Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Here is a draft of our proposed press release on 2008's > > global climate - > > > > > > >inputs came mainly from Peter Stott and John Kennedy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Comments welcome. It is due for release on Tuesday December > > 16th after > > > > > > >the WMO press release. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > >David > > > > > > >-- > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > Prof. Phil Jones > > > > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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. Peter Stott > > Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK > > Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 > > Mobile: 07753880683 > > E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk [5]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 Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3249. 2008-12-10 10:14:10 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 10 10:14:10 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: A quick question to: santer1@llnl.gov Ben, Haven't got a reply from the FOI person here at UEA. So I'm not entirely confident the numbers are correct. One way of checking would be to look on CA, but I'm not doing that. I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails - unless this was 'normal' deleting to keep emails manageable! McIntyre hasn't paid his £10, so nothing looks likely to happen re his Data Protection Act email. Anyway requests have been of three types - observational data, paleo data and who made IPCC changes and why. Keith has got all the latter - and there have been at least 4. We made Susan aware of these - all came from David Holland. According to the FOI Commissioner's Office, IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on, unless it has anything to do with our core business - and it doesn't! I'm sounding like Sir Humphrey here! McIntyre often gets others to do the requesting, but requests and responses all get posted up on CA regardless of who sends them. On observational data, there have been at least 5 including a couple from McIntyre. Others here came from Eschenbach and also Douglas Keenan. The latter relate to Wei-Chyung Wang, and despite his being exonerated by SUNY, Keenan has not changed his web site since being told the result by SUNY! [1]http://www.informath.org/ The paleo data requests have all been to Keith, and here Tim and Keith reply. The recent couple have come from McIntyre but there have been at least two others from Holland. So since Feb 2007, CRU is in double figures. We never get any thanks for putting things up - only abuse and threats. The latest lot is up in the last 3-4 threads on CA. I got this email over the weekend - see end of this email. This relates to what Tim sent back late last week. There was another one as well - a chatty one saying why didn't I respond to keep these people on CA quiet. I've ignored both. Finally, I know that DEFRA receive Parliamentary Questions from MPs to answer. One of these 2 months ago was from a Tory MP asking how much money DEFRA has given to CRU over the last 5 years. DEFRA replied that they don't give money - they award grants based on open competition. DEFRA's system also told them there were no awards to CRU, as when we do get something it is down as UEA! I've occasionally checked DEFRA responses to FOI requests - all from Holland. Cheers Phil Dear Mr Jones What are you frightened of? Is it that suddenly mugs like me who pay our taxes suddenly realise we are paying your wages. Please respond to Climate Audit's valid queries otherwise I will contact my MP. Please see below. Quote From CA As it happens, I have experience in mining exploration programs and I can assure Phil Jones that, contray to this experience enabling me to "understand why some samples are excluded", it gives me exactly the opposite perspective. It makes it virtually impossible for me to think up valid explanations for "excluding" some samples. It's illegal in the businesses that I know. Anyhow, CRU answered as follows: We have checked our files and no manuals, computer code, documents or correspondence are available. We can confirm, however, that we did not use a different Omoloyla data set and therefore there is no further data to provide. Your behaviour is absoulutely outrageous. Best regards Stuart Harmon At 01:48 09/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Phil, I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of FOIA requests that you've received from Steven McIntyre? 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) 422-3840 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 187. 2008-12-10 11:11:46 ______________________________________________________ cc: santer1@llnl.gov, wigley@ucar.edu, Mike Wallace , Phil Jones date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:11:46 -0700 from: Kevin Trenberth subject: Re: A new paper on 20th century global-mean temperature variability to: David Thompson David This looks like a very valuable contribution. I have a few suggestions. Firstly you may find the following two publications of interest Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2005: Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022760.[[1]Paper (.pdf)] Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai, 2007: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030524. [2][PDF] The first paper notes that there are strong relationships between precipitation and surface temperature that vary with latitude and season. Over land there is a strong negative correlation in summer extratropical continents and year round in tropics so that conditions are either hot and dry or cool and wet. So this relates to wetter conditions also being cloudier and changing SH and LH surface fluxes, etc. In winter at high lats the correlation is positive which is Clausius Clapeyron: warm and moist advection and ability of air to hold moisture. Over oceans there are also some interesting relations, some governed by ENSO: high SSTs go with rain. Anyway you mention natural variability and the SLP field but some of this may be through the precip relation, not just flow of air from land to ocean to land etc. You may want to at least mention this and the assoc mechanisms, and it may we a way to further reduce the "noise"? The second paper may be of interest wrt the volcanic eruption effects and the radiative forcing, and again the huge effect on rain and runoff. Although not speculated on in the paper, we show that after Pinatubo there is a decrease in land precip. We think this comes about in two stages. 1) the land cools more than ocean and the precip moves off shore, but at this stage there is no global decease in precip; then 2) there is a decease in evaporation and thus in global precip. For your study, this has two implications. 1) Part of the mechanism for influencing temperatures also comes through the precip link noted in paper (1) above. (2) In your Fig 7 you have the effects stratified by total, land and ocean, and it would be of interest to also see land minus ocean, and see whether the response is indeed quicker over land. Eyeballing it, it seems so. Now a few other comments on the paper. These are offered in the hope that it will help give the paper the impact it deserves. 1) The figures could use some work. Actually a lot of work. a) I urge you to add the zero line on all the time series. This helps also to see whether the time series does have low frequency components. b) I urge you to add some labels on the y axis. At least 0 and plus and minus 0.1C. (c) This sort of thing could easily be done in Illustrator. If you don't use Illustrator for your figures, I strongly recommend it and can talk to you about it. You can input ps files and generate eps, with nice labels and all sorts of touch ups, control of line widths and dot-dash types etc. You can control the white space and layout nicely also. In Illustrator you can also "save for microsoft" and it generates png files that are ideal in size for word documents or powerpoint, and so the size of the files is much reduced (e.g. from what you have). d) Fig. 2 is hard to see the white lines. (e) Fig 13 needs units on x axis: months? 2) The natural variability can, of course, also be affected by climate change and warming. A central question is how ENSO changes with climate change, for instance. You method is good but you should acknowledge (more) that the "natural variability" may also contain some climate change signals. 3) The difference in the effective heat capacity may also reflect the tropics (ENSO) vs global nature for volcanoes? You may want to speculate about the implications of these figures for changes in solar forcing and especially the 111 year sun spot cycle. 4) Alan Robock and Caspar Amann have a new volcanic forcing time series, pub in press in JGR I believe. Hope these help Kevin David Thompson wrote: Dear Kevin, Ben, Tom, Hope all is well. Mike Wallace, Phil Jones, John Kennedy (Met Office) and myself are about to submit a paper on the time-history of 20th century global-mean temperatures. The study is a follow-on to our study last summer which documented the discontinuity in SSTs in ~1945. Anyway, the paper is being passed around the authors for one last look, and we thought you might appreciate the chance to comment on the manuscript before it's submitted. I understand everyone is busy, especially at this time of year. And it's likely one or more of you will get the paper to review. But if you're interested and have any general comments, we'd appreciate your thoughts. Our rough plan is to submit within the first couple weeks after the New Year. The paper is attached as a doc file. And the figures are online at: [3]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/outgoing/Figures_JClimate_Dec9.pdf Since it's at the (near-final) draft stage, please treat the work as confidential for now (ie please don't distribute the text or figures). Thanks, Dave = _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 = -- **************** 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 5134. 2008-12-10 15:57:43 ______________________________________________________ date: Wed Dec 10 15:57:43 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: RE: WG comments - quick response to: C G Kilsby Chris, How much do you think we're going to do? Even restricting this to the 10 WG sites, the permutations are going to beat us. With all the non-rainfall variables we can't throw all the days together, else the seasonal cycle will obscure anything you want to see. To be able to see if 3>2>1 we'll need to restrict to individual months for temperature. Let's say we try this with a couple of temperature variables - mean monthly T and highest Tx. I expect 2 to be > 1 and 3>>2, but from looking at the model variants so far climate model uncertainty dwarfs WG uncertainty. Problem is much of this is down to wacky data. I'm beginning to think that the modelling has lost the real-world agreement between variables - which is what the WG assumes to still be the case! Colin has sent revised code to Vaz - it now runs through without hanging. This was only achievable by stopping the checks for silly numbers! Once you have some of the final cfs send down here - we need to look at them with those plots Colin did last week. Cheers Phil At 16:29 09/12/2008, you wrote: We already have sufficient info to start this: 1. 6190 obs = 30 years daily data (rainfall, temp, etc. and various indices of these) - can estimate mean + pdf or 10,50,90 %ile values by bootstrap etc. = natural variability 2. 6190 100 ensemble - can estimate WG "uncertainty" or pdfs for T, rainfall (various stats) = "WG uncertainty" 3. Future projections 1000 ensemble - pdfs as in 2 = "WG uncertainty" + ClimateModel uncertainty Expect 3>>2 and 2>~1 C _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 December 2008 16:06 To: C G Kilsby Subject: RE: WG comments - quick response Chris, Can you elaborate on the pdf idea? Not clear what you mean. Cheers Phil At 15:29 09/12/2008, you wrote: Yes - agree with all you say here and before. Alberto is after a full uncertainty analysis: a nice idea, but not realistic on this timescale, and we're not paid to do it! Something towards it would be useful/achievable though and will discuss here. Could do things like compare future pdfs of variables with pdf from control? (And same for extremes) Chris _______________________________________________________________________________ From: Phil Jones [ [2]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] Sent: 09 December 2008 10:42 To: C G Kilsby Cc: c.harpham@uea.ac.uk Subject: WG comments - quick response Chris, I presume we're on the same wavelength over these two sets of comments - i.e. there isn't much to respond to. The extra detail could be done, but it isn't going to be that helpful to 99.9% of potential users. It is too detailed for the main report - and probably too much for the Annex. I can have a go at responding this weekend - if we get Tim's by then, if you want? The most important thing to add is Section 4 - with some extremes in the future, but we need the final set of cfs for this. Cheers Phil Chris, These two sets of comments seem fine - let's hope Tim Carter's are in a similar vein. So good choices so far! I'm not sure that these are quite the reviews DEFRA were expecting, but they are positive for us. Elaine Barrow Not much to respond to. Elaine seems confused in para 3 about data preparation and the users checking their data. She's misunderstood that the WG is prefitted, by us! Ringway and LHR weren't the best sites. We do have the other 8. The validity of the IVRs in the future has been tested - in our section 3. Also she's not seen the WG User's Guide. Alberto Montanari Seems to want a lot more detail that we could do, but I'm sure that most people wouldn't even look at. We could provide goodness-of-fit diagrams, R*R of all the fits etc, but is this going to help the user understand uncertainty - certainly not if the cfs's have the range they currently do! Again there seems to be a few things that haven't been understood, which is useful. If these two can't understand what we've done. Happier with Dave Sexton's reply and that they will be clipping the values in the model variants. Colin is still checking the code Ag is using. There seem one or two small issues. Cheers Phil At 11:35 04/12/2008, Bryden, Clare wrote: Phil, Chris Please find two sets of review comments on the Weather Generator attached. Comments are still outstanding from Tim Carter, expected 11th December. <> <> Best regards Clare --- Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager Tel: 01392 884834 Mobile: 07717 156452 Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. _____________________________________________ From: Bryden, Clare Sent: 27 November 2008 09:30 To: 'myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk'; 'francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca'; 'C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk'; 'ctebaldi@climatecentral.org'; 'Alberto Montanari'; 'elaine.barrow@sasktel.net'; 'tim.carter@ymparisto.fi'; 'n.c.wells@soc.soton.ac.uk'; 'Jaak.Monbaliu@bwk.kuleuven.be'; 'corinna.schrum@gfi.uib.no' Cc: 'b.j.hoskins@reading.ac.uk'; 'brian.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk'; 'Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)'; 'roger.street@ukcip.org.uk'; 'Warrilow, David (CEOSA)'; 'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'; 'c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk'; Jenkins, Geoff; Pope, Vicky; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Gordon, Chris; Murphy, James Subject: RE: Review of science in UKCIP08 product Dear All This is a reminder that tomorrow is the deadline for review comments. Thank you to those who have already been in touch. The review is free format. We have no expectations or limitations regarding number of pages. Please send your review via email to John Mitchell, cc'ed to this email, and I'd be grateful if you could copy them to me. Please note that your comments will be shared with the other reviewers, by publishing them on the review website. We won't edit them in any way, other than by converting to pdf. Best regards Clare --- Clare Bryden Climate Business Manager Tel: 01392 884834 Mobile: 07717 156452 Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. _____________________________________________ From: Bryden, Clare Sent: 20 October 2008 16:35 To: 'myles.allen@physics.ox.ac.uk'; 'francis.zwiers@ec.gc.ca'; 'C.Goodess@uea.ac.uk'; 'ctebaldi@climatecentral.org' Cc: 'b.j.hoskins@reading.ac.uk'; 'brian.hoskins@imperial.ac.uk'; 'Humphrey, Kathryn (CEOSA)'; 'roger.street@ukcip.org.uk'; 'Warrilow, David (CEOSA)'; 'P.Jones@uea.ac.uk'; 'c.g.kilsby@ncl.ac.uk'; Jenkins, Geoff; Pope, Vicky; Mitchell, John FB (Director of Climate Science); Gordon, Chris; Murphy, James Subject: Review of science in UKCIP08 product Dear All We understand from Defra that you have kindly agreed to review aspects of the UK 21st Century Climate Change Scenarios. I will be project managing the review on behalf of Defra. I attach a short note on the Terms of Reference for the Review. As mentioned in the original letter of invitation from Bob Watson, we would be grateful if you would review the section on probabilistic projections, and in particular to assess whether the methodology employed is appropriate for its purpose of delivering state-of-the-art estimates of the risk of different outcomes for UK climate, consistent with current understanding of key drivers of climate change, available climate model results and constraints offered by observations of historical climate. The review should not comment on such aspects as presentation to users or the contents of the reports. The review documents are available on a password-protected website. Please let me know if you cannot gain access for any reason. URL - [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/review3/ Login - icp0712 Password - Bar0meter Best regards Clare << File: ReviewUKCIP08_TOR_v2.pdf >> --- Clare Bryden Climate Account Manager Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter EX1 3PB United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1392 885196 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07717 156452 E-mail: clare.bryden@metoffice.gov.uk [4]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/ Please note that I work four days a week, Monday-Thursday. © Crown Copyright 2008. Produced by the Met Office. New Met Office Climate Change Seminars - plan today to safeguard your future success [5]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/training/climatechange Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1829. 2008-12-11 09:00:32 ______________________________________________________ cc: Mike Wallace , Phil Jones date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:00:32 -0700 from: David Thompson subject: Re: A new paper on 20th century global-mean temperature variability to: Kevin Trenberth Kevin, I agree. The signal of other aerosols is presumably isolated in the residuals (ie, perhaps as the cool-down in the 70s). We should clarify that in the text. -Dave On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: David I forgot to include one other aspect you may want to consider also: and that is the role of aerosol forcing. You do include the volcanic aerosol, and find a nice cleaner relationship, and so it implies that changes in other aerosol may also have a signal that is not accounted for. Kevin David Thompson wrote: Kevin, Thanks much for the helpful comments (and so quick!). Your points about the figures are well taken. I admit noting 'ticks at xx' is a little lazy, and that the reader would appreciate specific units on the axes. And I'll think about the precipitation relationships. I'm not sure I've ever seen a map of grid point precipitation regressed on global-mean temperatures (with ENSO removed), but it would be interesting if it turns out useful. Either way, I'll be sure to mention the work. Thanks, Dave On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:11 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote: David This looks like a very valuable contribution. I have a few suggestions. Firstly you may find the following two publications of interest Trenberth, K. E., and D. J. Shea, 2005: Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L14703, doi:10.1029/2005GL022760.[[1]Paper (.pdf)] Trenberth, K. E., and A. Dai, 2007: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030524. [2][PDF] The first paper notes that there are strong relationships between precipitation and surface temperature that vary with latitude and season. Over land there is a strong negative correlation in summer extratropical continents and year round in tropics so that conditions are either hot and dry or cool and wet. So this relates to wetter conditions also being cloudier and changing SH and LH surface fluxes, etc. In winter at high lats the correlation is positive which is Clausius Clapeyron: warm and moist advection and ability of air to hold moisture. Over oceans there are also some interesting relations, some governed by ENSO: high SSTs go with rain. Anyway you mention natural variability and the SLP field but some of this may be through the precip relation, not just flow of air from land to ocean to land etc. You may want to at least mention this and the assoc mechanisms, and it may we a way to further reduce the "noise"? The second paper may be of interest wrt the volcanic eruption effects and the radiative forcing, and again the huge effect on rain and runoff. Although not speculated on in the paper, we show that after Pinatubo there is a decrease in land precip. We think this comes about in two stages. 1) the land cools more than ocean and the precip moves off shore, but at this stage there is no global decease in precip; then 2) there is a decease in evaporation and thus in global precip. For your study, this has two implications. 1) Part of the mechanism for influencing temperatures also comes through the precip link noted in paper (1) above. (2) In your Fig 7 you have the effects stratified by total, land and ocean, and it would be of interest to also see land minus ocean, and see whether the response is indeed quicker over land. Eyeballing it, it seems so. Now a few other comments on the paper. These are offered in the hope that it will help give the paper the impact it deserves. 1) The figures could use some work. Actually a lot of work. a) I urge you to add the zero line on all the time series. This helps also to see whether the time series does have low frequency components. b) I urge you to add some labels on the y axis. At least 0 and plus and minus 0.1C. (c) This sort of thing could easily be done in Illustrator. If you don't use Illustrator for your figures, I strongly recommend it and can talk to you about it. You can input ps files and generate eps, with nice labels and all sorts of touch ups, control of line widths and dot-dash types etc. You can control the white space and layout nicely also. In Illustrator you can also "save for microsoft" and it generates png files that are ideal in size for word documents or powerpoint, and so the size of the files is much reduced (e.g. from what you have). d) Fig. 2 is hard to see the white lines. (e) Fig 13 needs units on x axis: months? 2) The natural variability can, of course, also be affected by climate change and warming. A central question is how ENSO changes with climate change, for instance. You method is good but you should acknowledge (more) that the "natural variability" may also contain some climate change signals. 3) The difference in the effective heat capacity may also reflect the tropics (ENSO) vs global nature for volcanoes? You may want to speculate about the implications of these figures for changes in solar forcing and especially the 111 year sun spot cycle. 4) Alan Robock and Caspar Amann have a new volcanic forcing time series, pub in press in JGR I believe. Hope these help Kevin David Thompson wrote: Dear Kevin, Ben, Tom, Hope all is well. Mike Wallace, Phil Jones, John Kennedy (Met Office) and myself are about to submit a paper on the time-history of 20th century global-mean temperatures. The study is a follow-on to our study last summer which documented the discontinuity in SSTs in ~1945. Anyway, the paper is being passed around the authors for one last look, and we thought you might appreciate the chance to comment on the manuscript before it's submitted. I understand everyone is busy, especially at this time of year. And it's likely one or more of you will get the paper to review. But if you're interested and have any general comments, we'd appreciate your thoughts. Our rough plan is to submit within the first couple weeks after the New Year. The paper is attached as a doc file. And the figures are online at: [3]www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/outgoing/Figures_JClimate_Dec9.pdf Since it's at the (near-final) draft stage, please treat the work as confidential for now (ie please don't distribute the text or figures). Thanks, Dave = _______________________________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [4]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 = -- **************** 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- David W. J. Thompson [7]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 -- **************** 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 4834. 2008-12-11 11:14:00 ______________________________________________________ cc: "C G Kilsby" , "Phil Jones" date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:14:00 +0000 from: "vassilis glenis" subject: Re: Queries re WG falling over and wacky numbers .. to: "Colin Harpham" Hi, Just to let you know that the WG didn't crash this time. However, it might be a good idea to use the previous version with the new set of data to check if there are still silly numbers in. thanks, vas On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Colin Harpham wrote: > All, > > The while loops already had a >1000 where the normalised variable is set to > the range -1...1, this was put in because the WG would occasionally hang > with certain observed data. However the exit condition of the loop still > held (between 0.0 and 2*mean - denormalised). With proper numbers this is > fine. I have now put a loop exit condition in for perturbed runs (only) > because the perturbed variable can it seems exceed 2*mean. > Temperature range can also become negative so I have set the range to 0.0 if > Trange<0.0. > Apart from Trange this mod does not do any filtering - silly number in, > silly number out. > I have done some random checks with the 'ini' files Vas sent and it seems > OK. > Vas, can you give the revised code a run and see if still hangs anywhere. > > Cheers > Colin > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Kilsby [mailto:c.g.kilsby@newcastle.ac.uk] > Sent: 09 December 2008 15:58 > To: 'Phil Jones' > Cc: 'vassilis glenis'; Colin Harpham > Subject: Queries re WG falling over and wacky numbers .. > > Phil/Colin > > Having a chat with Vas re issues etc. Any ideas on the following Q's: > > 1. Looking at the numbers/cfs when it falls over: these are not all actually > extremes: more likely it is weird >combinations< of variables/cfs that > casues the problem. If so, clipping won't help!! > > Also, if this is the case, it shows that the corss-correlations of eth pdfs > of cfs are not high, and ill-conditioned vectors of cfs result. We would > have been better off using the WG cross correlations (IVRs) to determine the > VP, sunshine, wind etc rather than fixing the cfs for these with the > much-vaunted "physically-based" relationships coming out of the RCMs !!! > > Is there any other "sanitising " strategy to spot these bad combinations? > Can we write some rules for what we would expect, and report back/exclude > the run if they are non-physical ?? > > Or do we just accept this as part of the "statistical" rather than > "physical/deterministic" approach?! > > 2. What is this "while loop" that your WG follows when it falls over (for > VP?) ? > What happens if you jump out after (say) 100 iterations as a fail safe? > > Could you set something up to log this if it happens, rather than the code > just hanging? > > (Ideally won't need this, if the clipping and sanitising works, but I fear > this won't happen 100% !!) > > Chris > > > 3304. 2008-12-12 21:47:11 ______________________________________________________ date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:11 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: On corrections during World War II to: Phil Jones Hi Phil--I was reviewing a paper and noting the differences during World War II and thought up another potential bias that I wonder if is being corrected for in the ship measurements. Namely, what I am wondering is if account was taken of the likely different loading (and so height of measurement--for air and water) of the ships as they went east and west. Basically, the ships were heavy laden going east and virtually empty coming back, and so there might well be a need to correct the observations accordingly. Just a thought--as the only place the models and observations seem different is over the ocean during WWII. Best, Mike 5347. 2008-12-15 07:26:36 ______________________________________________________ cc: Keith date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 07:26:36 -0800 from: Lisa Graumlich subject: Re: NERC proposal to: Tom Melvin Dear Tom and Keith, I'm happy to act as a reviewer and hope that the NERC proposal fares well in the review process. Keith, get better! This is a terrible time of year to be ill. Best wishes, Lisa On Dec 15, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Tom Melvin wrote: > Lisa, > > Keith drafted a letter to you and is sick with flu at the moment. > > Attached is the letter and a copy of the proposal that we submitted. > > 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. Lisa J. Graumlich Professor & Director School of Natural Resources The University of Arizona 325 BioSciences East Tucson AZ 85721 520-621-7255 (main office) 520-621-8801 (fax) lisag@cals.arizona.edu http://snr.arizona.edu 3849. 2008-12-15 14:17:34 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon Dec 15 14:17:34 2008 from: Tom Melvin subject: Re: NERC proposal to: Martin Wilmking Martin, I would start by separating trees detrended with horizontal line from the others. Then try signal-free method. Should produce slight improvement but each chronology will have an "unknown" overall slope. Then try RCS method, but hopefuly with sufficient trees to use multiple RCS curves (for separate growth rate classes of tree) and see what resuls are like. Can group trees with a common signal when building RCS curves. Can you send me what data you have? I would only use it with your permission. Tom At 14:01 15/12/2008, you wrote: Tom, great if you could run the data! In the data I collected there is some pith offset (which we could "correct"), but since we are also using data collected by a colleague who worked at the same site and I dont know the offset, maybe it would be best to only test the traditional version? Martin PS I am ccing Dr. Jayendra Singh, who is currently working on the data Tom Melvin wrote: Martin, Yes. I am currently amending program but should be able to run the data through signal-free method, both curve-fitting and RCS. Hopefully programs will be sufficiently developed soon (with help and documentation) for you to be able to use them. Do you have any missing pith offset data for the sites. For "modern" chronologies it can make a significant difference to RCS. Tom At 13:20 15/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Tom, thanks for the copy! Dear Keith, get well soon. Martin btw, Tom, we have a data set from eastern Alaska, where we do have massive change in temp sensitivity (about 90% of sampled trees), if we detrend traditionally or with RCS. Would it be possible for you to test this data set with your signal free approach, since it seems as if the Canadian sites (Mackenzie Delta) close by are affected by standardization method? thanks martin Melvin wrote: Martin, Attached is a copy of the proposal that we submitted and an explanatory letter from Keith (who is sick with flu at the moment). Tom Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- 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 [1]http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de Dr. Tom Melvin Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K. Phone: +44-1603-593161 Fax: +44-1603-507784 -- 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 [2]http://biogeo.botanik.uni-greifswald.de 862. 2008-12-15 18:10:48 ______________________________________________________ cc: David Parker , "Gromett, Barry" , "Jones, Phil" date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:10:48 +0000 from: Peter Stott subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release to: Myles Allen I don't like comparing a single year anomaly with an overall global warming anomaly - we have tried in the past to stop the press saying things like cooling over the last year has cancelled out half of the global warming over the century or whatever - but we have put an extra sentence in the release making the cooler than expected point. Peter On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 09:27 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > Hi David, > > OK, so the point is even stronger than I originally thought. We should > definitely point out that the downturn, although large compared to > temperature fluctuations so far this decade, is only one quarter of the > warming in average temperatures that we have experienced since the > 1970s. > > Peter/Barry: are you happy inserting an appropriate sentence in the > press release? > > Myles > -----Original Message----- > From: David Parker [mailto:david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk] > Sent: 12 December 2008 16:31 > To: Myles Allen > Cc: Stott, Peter; Gromett, Barry; Jones, Phil > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > Myles > > Yes, they are anomalies from 1961-90. The numbers are on > http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual > (left-most column of data) except 2008 which John Kennedy is still > updating. > > David > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 15:27 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > > Thanks very much, David. It's a good thing we checked. > > > > Assuming the figures David has just sent are anomalies from 1961-90, > the > > sentence should read: > > > > Although 2008 was 0.1oC cooler than the average for 2000-07, it was > > still 0.3oC warmer than the average for 1961-90. > > > > Regards, > > > > Myles > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Parker [mailto:david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk] > > Sent: 12 December 2008 14:37 > > To: Myles Allen > > Cc: Stott, Peter; Gromett, Barry; Jones, Phil > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > Myles > > > > Here are the numbers with 2008 updated through November. The bars on > the > > ranking-diagram indicate the 95% confidence limits associated with > each > > year. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > > > > > 1990 0.248 > > 1991 0.197 > > 1992 0.055 > > 1993 0.102 > > 1994 0.163 > > 1995 0.276 > > 1996 0.123 > > 1997 0.355 > > 1998 0.515 > > 1999 0.262 > > 2000 0.238 > > 2001 0.400 > > 2002 0.455 > > 2003 0.457 > > 2004 0.432 > > 2005 0.479 > > 2006 0.422 > > 2007 0.403 > > 2008 0.313 > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 13:30 +0000, Myles Allen wrote: > > > My numbers use HadCRUT3vgl, expressed as anomalies about 1961-90, > with > > > a 2008 figure of 0.296 above the 1961-90 mean. If this is correct, > > > then they should be OK at least to the 2 sig figs we quote. Of > course, > > > it would be good to double-check. > > > > > > > > > > > > Myles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Stott, Peter [mailto:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk] > > > Sent: 12 December 2008 13:14 > > > To: Myles Allen; Gromett, Barry; Phil Jones > > > Cc: Parker, David > > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in a meeting all day and can't usefully comment right now. > > > > > > David could supply numbers perhaps. ... > > > > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Dr. Peter Stott > > > Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution > > > Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter. EX1 3PB, UK > > > Tel +44(0)1392 886646 Fax +44(0)1392885681 > > > Email: peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk > > > http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Myles Allen [mailto:allen@atm.ox.ac.uk] > > > Sent: 12 December 2008 12:30 > > > To: Gromett, Barry; Phil Jones; Stott, Peter > > > Subject: RE: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we could be accused of "spinning" the numbers if we don't > > > highlight the fact that 2008 was cool relative to the temperatures > we > > > would expect given current climate drivers. I would be happy to > > > augment my quote to say: "This was a cool year relative to the > > > temperatures we have come to expect with global warming, but not > > > surprisingly so: we would have predicted around a 1-in-10 chance of > a > > > year this cold given the current state of the climate. But it would > > > have been considered a warm year even as recently as the 1970s and > > > 1980s, and a scorcher in Victorian times." > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think it would be good to put this right up front, for > example > > > by adding a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying > > > "Although this is 0.15oC cooler than the average for 2000-07, it is > > > still 0.3oC warmer than the average for 1961-90" (Peter, please > verify > > > numbers). I think it is important information that the downward > > > fluctuation (which many people will want to draw attention to) is > only > > > one third of the warming we have experienced since the 70s. I also > > > think saying 2008 was "still one of the 10 warmest years on record" > is > > > open to criticism. It was no. 10, so we should say so, or the likes > of > > > Steve McKintyre will start saying "Next thing, they'll be saying > > > `still one of the 16 warmest years on record...' and so on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you remind me what determines the length of the bars on that > plot? > > > I feel I should know... > > > > > > > > > > > > Myles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > From: Gromett, Barry [mailto:barry.gromett@metoffice.gov.uk] > > > Sent: 11 December 2008 15:08 > > > To: Phil Jones; Myles Allen > > > Subject: 2008 global temp news release > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil/Myles > > > > > > The Met Office has led on a news release to be issued next week (16 > > > Dec) on 2008 global mean temperature. Peter Stott passed me quotes > > > from both of you and I wanted to check these with you. Could you > also > > > forward to respective press offices for information? Thanks very > much. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > Barry > > > > > > <> > > > > > > Barry Gromett > > > Met Office FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United > Kingdom > > > Tel: +44 (0)1392 886844 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681 Mobile: 07753 > > > 880380 > > > E-mail: barry.gromett@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk > > > > > > This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. Its contents are > > > provided 'in confidence' and may be covered by contractual, legal or > > > other privilege. If you are not the addressee, you may not use or > > > copy it to any other person. > > > > > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Peter Stott Head Climate Monitoring and Attribution Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK Tel: +44 (0)118 378 5613 Fax: +44 (0)118 378 5615 Mobile: 07753880683 E-mail:peter.stott@metoffice.gov.uk http://www.metoffice.gov.uk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3395. 2008-12-15 19:03:32 ______________________________________________________ date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:03:32 -0500 from: Mike MacCracken subject: Re: More on WW II Temperatures to: David Parker , Phil Jones Hi Phil and David--I am at the AGU meeting in San Francisco and was at a session on El Nino variability. I was struck by the data record shown for the Nino3 region, which shows no El Nino in 1944 (there apparently was a few year warm period centered around 1941), which I think the NH record shows as the very warmest year (or was it 1943) in that period until the 1980s. I recall hearing that the explanation for that very warm year was that there must have been a very strong El Nino that year--but that is clearly not the case in the record that the ENSO community is using. To get such a strong global/NH warming, it must be really warm somewhere--and it is not the Nino3 region nor over the US. I am wondering if there are year by year (even month by month) temperature anomaly maps available on the Web to look at somewhere, for must be a very interesting anomaly map. [My plotting capabilities are pretty limited.] Best, Mike MacCracken Thanks--just a thought. It would sure also be nice if the reanalyses could go back to before WWII in order to be able to look at the consistency/inconsistency of changes over land and ocean. Looking at the US land temperature record, there is not a warming during WWII comparable to what seems to be happening over the ocean--it just seems more than coincidental that virtually the only region and time where the IPCC detection-attribution analysis showed inconsistency was over the ocean during WWII. I have not seen the results of that analysis by ocean basin, but that would sure seem interesting to look at in order to perhaps focus an effort to look very closely at what was going on--unusual weather or an inhomogeneity in the data. Best, Mike On 12/15/08 5:00 AM, "David Parker" wrote: > Mike > > Phil Jones thanks you for your message - his university mail server > won't let him reply to comcast.net. > > I doubt whether the effect you mention would systematically bias SST and > marine air temperature but it could increase the uncertainties so I have > passed this idea on to John Kennedy here and to Liz Kent at > eck@noc.soton.ac.uk who is analysing the marine air temperatures. > > David > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.14.0.081024 >>>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:47:11 -0500 >>>> Subject: On corrections during World War II >>>> From: Mike MacCracken >>>> To: Phil Jones >>>> Thread-Topic: On corrections during World War II >>>> Thread-Index: AclczRi/1V/mstaz/U+rMHL8VKEkaw== >>>> X-Canit-CHI2: 0.00 >>>> X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: @@RPTN, f028) >>>> X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 5.00] SPF(pass,0) >>>> X-CanItPRO-Stream: UEA:f028 (inherits from > UEA:default,base:default) >>>> X-Canit-Stats-ID: 14397679 - 9dd86b7611c1 (trained as not-spam) >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Forget: >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Nonspam: >>>> X-Antispam-Training-Spam: >>>> X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 139.222.131.184 >>>> >>>> Hi Phil--I was reviewing a paper and noting the differences >> during World War >>>> II and thought up another potential bias that I wonder if is >> being corrected >>>> for in the ship measurements. Namely, what I am wondering is if >> account was >>>> taken of the likely different loading (and so height of >> measurement--for air >>>> and water) of the ships as they went east and west. Basically, the > ships >>>> were heavy laden going east and virtually empty coming back, and so > there >>>> might well be a need to correct the observations accordingly. >>>> >>>> Just a thought--as the only place the models and observations >> seem different >>>> is over the ocean during WWII. >>>> >>>> Best, 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 >>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> 1441. 2008-12-16 16:38:02 ______________________________________________________ cc: "David C. Bader" , Bill Goldstein , Tomas Diaz De La Rubia , Hal Graboske , Cherry Murray , mann , "Michael C. MacCracken" , Bill Fulkerson , Professor Glenn McGregor , Luca Delle Monache , "Hack, James J." , Thomas C Peterson , vladeckd@law.georgetown.edu, miller21@llnl.gov, Michael Wehner , "Bamzai, Anjuli" date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:38:02 -0800 from: Ben Santer subject: FOIA request to: "Thorne, Peter" , Leopold Haimberger , Karl Taylor , Tom Wigley , John Lanzante , Susan Solomon , Melissa Free , peter gleckler , "'Philip D. Jones'" , Thomas R Karl , Steve Klein , carl mears , Doug Nychka , Gavin Schmidt , Steven Sherwood , Frank Wentz Dear co-authors, I just wanted to alert you to the fact that Steven McIntyre has now made a request to U.S. DOE Headquarters under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). McIntyre asked for "Monthly average T2LT values for the 47 climate models (sic) as used to test the H1 hypothesis in Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere". I was made aware of the FOIA request earlier this morning. McIntyre's request eventually reached the U.S. DOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Livermore Site Office. The requested records are to be provided to the "FOIA Point of Contact" (presumably at NNSA) by Dec. 22, 2008. McIntyre's request is poorly-formulated and misleading. As noted in the Santer et al. paper cited by McIntyre, we examined "a set of 49 simulations of twentieth century climate change performed with 19 different models". McIntyre confuses the number of 20th century realizations analyzed in our paper (49, not 47!) with the number of climate models used to generate those realizations (19). This very basic mistake does not inspire one with confidence about McIntyre's understanding of climate models, or his ability to undertake meaningful analysis of climate model results. Over the past several weeks, I've had a number of discussions about the "FOIA issue" with PCMDI's Director (Dave Bader), with other LLNL colleagues, and with colleagues outside of the Lab. Based on these discussions, I have decided to "publish" all of the climate model surface temperature time series and synthetic MSU time series (for the tropical lower troposphere [T2LT] and the tropical mid- to upper-troposphere [T2]) that we used in our International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper. This will involve putting these datasets through an internal "Review and Release" procedure, and then placing the datasets on PCMDI's publicly-accessible website. The website will also provide information on how synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) temperatures were calculated, anomaly definition, analysis periods, etc. After publication of the model data, we will inform the "FOIA Point of Contact" that the information requested by McIntyre is publicly available for bona fide scientific research. Unfortunately, we cannot guard against intentional or unintentional misuse of these datasets by McIntyre or others. By publishing the T2, T2LT, and surface temperature data, we will be providing far more than the "Monthly average T2LT values" mentioned in McIntyre's FOIA request to DOE. This will make it difficult for McIntyre to continue making the bogus claim that he is being denied access to the climate model data necessary to evaluate the validity of our findings. All of the raw model output used in our IJoC paper are already available to Mr. McIntyre (as I informed him several months ago), as are the algorithms required to calculate synthetic MSU temperatures from raw model temperature data. I hope that "publication" of the synthetic MSU temperatures resolves this matter to the satisfaction of NNSA, DOE Headquarters, and LLNL. 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) 422-3840 FAX: (925) 422-7675 email: santer1@llnl.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3401. 2008-12-16 16:43:40 ______________________________________________________ date: Tue Dec 16 16:43:40 2008 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 to: ian renfrew Ian, I passed this onto you. If you have a research grant then you have to sign for things like this. What you have to do this time is just to sign it to say the goods or whatever have been received. I used to be able to do this for Nathan's grant, but it seems I can't now. I am already a signee on all grants, but since recently this has been restricted to just my grants. I complained about this, but was told I had to fill in a separate form for each grant! You should be able to look at this grant on the PMA system as I can't. But, I bet no-one in SCI Finance knows Nathan has left! Sorry to drop this on to you. I thought you were a signatory. Cheers Phil At 16:26 16/12/2008, you wrote: Dear Finance people, Can someone tell me what the conclusion of all this was? In plain english please. I've just received an invoice from Reading. Should I throw it in the bin? Or pass to someone - if so who. I am not qualified to sign it, as the expenses are not something I can check. thanks Ian Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) wrote: Yes and this is exactly what has happened with this grant. All costs for Reading and BAS were split out in the budget headings. So far there is no spend under these collaborator "W" headings. It seems to me that any invoices from Reading or BAS not charged to the "W" headings should be recharged as appropriate, by the school/faculty. Future invoices from the collaborators should be charged to the appropriate heading, as is the normal procedure. Richard __________________________________________________________________ *Dr Richard Doyle, Research Contracts Associate* University of East Anglia *Tel:* 01603 591483 | *Fax:* 01603 591550 *Email:* richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk |* Web:* [1]www.uea.ac.uk/reeo Research, Enterprise & Engagement Office, The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. University companies registered in England: UEA Enterprises Ltd (Company No. 02626389); UEA Consulting Ltd (Company No. 6477521); SYS Consulting Ltd (Company No. 04045713). Registered Office: The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ __________________________________________________________________ This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Janice Darch [[2]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk] *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 10:24 AM *To:* Doyle Richard Dr (RBS); Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD); npgillett@googlemail.com *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi , Collaborator and coIs are different things in NERC speak.If a PI from UEA and a CoI from say Reading put their costs on the same form the CoI's actual DA cost go into the same budget as ours and have to be split out at award stage by the PI's institution. 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:* Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) <[3]mailto:Richard.Doyle@uea.ac.uk> *To:* Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) <[4]mailto:E.Reynolds@uea.ac.uk> ; npgillett@googlemail.com <[5]mailto:npgillett@googlemail.com> ; Darch Janice Dr (SCI) <[6]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV) <[7]mailto:I.Renfrew@uea.ac.uk> ; Jones Philip Prof (ENV) <[8]mailto:P.Jones@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 10:00 AM *Subject:* RE: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear All, (Note my email address is richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk <[9]mailto:richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk>, I have not received any previous emails regarding this sent to r.doyle@uea.ac.uk <[10]mailto:r.doyle@uea.ac.uk>) The collaborator costs are under the following headings: Staff - WS Travel and Subsistence - WT Indirect and Estates - WI Invoices can be charged by the PI to these headings. Any invoices from Reading or BAS not charged under these headings should be recharged. I can send out copies of the subcontracts if required - let me know. If there are any further queries please let me know. Regards, Richard __________________________________________________________________ *Dr Richard Doyle, Research Contracts Associate* University of East Anglia *Tel:* 01603 591483 | *Fax:* 01603 591550 *Email:* richard.doyle@uea.ac.uk |* Web:* [11]www.uea.ac.uk/reeo Research, Enterprise & Engagement Office, The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ. University companies registered in England: UEA Enterprises Ltd (Company No. 02626389); UEA Consulting Ltd (Company No. 6477521); SYS Consulting Ltd (Company No. 04045713). Registered Office: The Registry, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ __________________________________________________________________ This email may contain privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient please notify the sender and delete all copies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* Reynolds Elly Mrs (ACAD) *Sent:* Monday, November 17, 2008 9:25 AM *To:* npgillett@googlemail.com; Darch Janice Dr (SCI); Doyle Richard Dr (RBS) *Cc:* Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* RE: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear All It is not as simple as transferring money from one heading to another. All monies under DA (Directly Allocated) budgets go automatically to the School. All DI (Directly Incurred) budgets are those which are available for spend by the PI. Invoices cannot, therefore, be charged against DA budgets. I am surprised that Lesley Gray was written in under DA costs surely these should have gone under DI costs? I note that there is a heading on this account for Collaborators staff costs - is this budget by any chance related to Lesley Grays costs? Regards Elly ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* npgillett@googlemail.com [[12]mailto:npgillett@googlemail.com] *On Behalf Of *Nathan Gillett *Sent:* 13 November 2008 18:17 *To:* Darch Janice Dr (SCI) *Cc:* Doyle Rebecca Ms (EDU); Mcgonagle Laura Mrs (SCI); Renfrew Ian Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, Thanks very much for looking into this - it sounds like you're well on the way to sorting this out. The earlier invoice has been paid already from the consumables budget of the project - it was for £3436.89 and I think this was all DA costs for Lesley Gray. I think the payment was authorized by Phil Jones sometime in August. If possible could we get the consumables budget reimbursed with these DA costs? Thanks very much, Nathan 2008/11/13 Janice Darch > Hi, Well Christine Webster just brought another invoice from Reading for DA costs to me to sign. It is : £679.47 for period 1.6.08 to 31.8.08 Invoice No 94180 Apparently SCI Fin were aware but had not until now set up codes to pay them from..However neither Christine nor I have seen the invoice that you are chasing which is an earlier one . If any one has it please let me know and it can be processed. 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:* Janice Darch <[14]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *To:* r.doyle@uea <[15]mailto:r.doyle@uea> *Cc:* Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca <[16]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> ; l.mcgonagle@uea <[17]mailto:l.mcgonagle@uea> *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:42 AM *Subject:* Fw: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Dear Richard, It seem that UEA may have pocketed the DA costs for Reading in this contract rather than passing it on to them. I have copied this to Laura too.Can you look into this please as we don't want to pay Exeter out of the UEA DI money. Thanks, 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:* Nathan Gillett <[18]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> *To:* Janice Darch <[19]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* ian renfrew <[20]mailto:i.renfrew@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:45 PM *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, Thanks for the reply. I checked the proposal, see attached, and there is a £5736 cost estimate for Lesley Gray's salary costs (pg 5). On pg 4 this is listed under 'Directly allocated: Investigators' - so we did include this funding in the proposal. This money must have been paid to someone - either Reading or UEA. If UEA has not been paid this money, then perhaps it has been paid to Reading by NERC. If UEA has been paid this money, then there must be a mechanism for paying investigators' costs under FEC to other institutions - other projects must be in a similar situation. We definitely did not budget for this money to come out of the consumables budget. Cheers, Nathan 2008/11/11 Janice Darch > Dear Nathan, We cannot spend indirect costs as that money does not come in to ENV accounts. 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:* Nathan Gillett <[22]mailto:Nathan.Gillett@ec.gc.ca> *To:* Janice Darch <[23]mailto:J.Darch@uea.ac.uk> *Cc:* Jones Philip Prof (ENV) <[24]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk> ; ian renfrew <[25]mailto:i.renfrew@uea.ac.uk> *Sent:* Monday, November 10, 2008 8:25 PM *Subject:* Re: Invoice to University of Reading on R14665 Hi Janice, I just wanted to check again that that invoice from Reading for £3436.89 has been adquately dealt with. I got the email below suggesting this had been paid out of consumables, but I'm pretty sure this is FEC costs for Lesley's time on the project, and therefore should have come out of project overheads, not consumables. In the proposal we budgeted for Lesley's FEC costs to come out of overheads rather than consumables. If this is impossible to change now, then no problem - but if possible, it would be good to kee